Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2013.

Clause 38 - Code of practice on local authority publicity

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 147, in clause 38, page 24, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

‘(4) A direction can only be made by the Secretary of State if—

(a) evidence of a breach of a code has been published and sent by the Secretary of State to the local authority;

(b) a local authority, on receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them of evidence which purports to demonstrate a breach of the code has made a response to the Secretary of State within 28 days; and

(c) upon receiving any response the Secretary of State has published a report detailing his conclusions.’.

Amendment 148, in clause 38, page 24, leave out from line 37 to line 21 on page 25.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

We had an extensive debate on the amendments on Tuesday, so I intend to bring my remarks to a close quickly.

Just to conclude the Opposition’s case for our amendments, we believe that the case for clause 38 is unproven. We are concerned about the lack of evidence for introducing a sweeping power for the Secretary of State effectively to censor local publications. The only evidence that has been presented, other than the one example on which we are all agreed and on which we would have urged the Government to take action, gives us more cause for concern, not less, about the Government’s motive for introducing the clause.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

We all worked hard to finish in time to vote on Tuesday. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to put something on the record quickly now.

The hon. Member for Derby North will no doubt be delighted to know that I met the chief executive of Transparency International yesterday. One of the interesting comments he made to me was exactly on the point just raised by the hon. Member for Corby: he said that one of the organisation’s concerns is the loss of independent local press. One of the reasons behind clause 38 is to protect and help to defend independent local press, which Transparency International thinks is so important. That backs up the evidence that I provided on Tuesday—listing all the authorities that are potentially a threat to the local press.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

As I have said, we do not believe that the case has been proven. We argued at some length about the complementarity there often is between local papers, the work of local authorities and their own news sheets or magazines. That is all on the record from Tuesday’s sitting.

Clause 38 is unproven, undemocratic, unnecessary and wholly disproportionate. We urge the Government to think again before Report and Third Reading. We also urge Government Members to vote with the Opposition against clause stand part, given that we have had no satisfaction regarding the amendment, which I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Clause 39 - Council tax referendums

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 39, page 26, line 46, at end insert—

“This section shall not apply to City Deals signed prior to the commencement of this Act.”.

Clause 39, from whose scope the amendment would remove city deals, revisits council tax referendum provisions, which were discussed at great length a couple of years ago in proceedings on what became the Localism Act 2011. The effect of the clause is to include in the definition of a relevant amount of council tax certain levies which had hitherto been excluded. Previously, any increase in council tax resulting from an increase in the levy from these bodies would not have caused a determination that the level of council tax would be excessive, or trigger the requirement for a referendum. The clause extends the council tax referendum provisions introduced in the 2011 Act to include levying bodies, such as waste disposal authorities, integrated transport authorities, pension authorities and internal drainage boards, so that in future a disproportionate increase in their levy could trigger a referendum requirement. In addition to the concern about extending the referendum requirement to include more levies over which the local authority has no control, the clause could lead to more situations in which the local authority may seek to absorb a sufficient part of that increase within its budget to avoid a referendum—a potentially awful dilemma, given the precarious state of the finances of most local authorities.

We are concerned that the way in which the clause is worded appears to allow calculations of future limits to reflect circumstances where local authorities would have breached the council tax threshold in the current year if the new rules had applied to it. In the other place, Members said that this has the whiff of retrospection—rather more than a whiff, I would say, because it would appear that subsection (15) allows the Secretary of State to decide if an increase in council tax would have been excessive for the financial year starting in April 2013, if the clause had been in force.

In financial year 2013-14, several authorities saw rises of more than 3% in council tax bills due to significant rises in levies upon them from other bodies, while their own components of council tax rose by less than the 2% threshold. Will the Minister say in what circumstances the Government would use clause 39 to penalise local authorities which have complied in every way with the rules as they stood when their council tax levels were set, and how many and which authorities would be caught by this retrospection and the inclusion of a wider number of levying bodies?

The Minister will know, and hence it is the focus of our amendment, that this clause has raised concerns in a number of local authorities, particularly about city deals and where local authorities have entered into arrangements predicated on a certain increasing levy stream. It is understood that the city deal with Leeds, for example, has been promised an investment fund partly financed by an increased levy from the integrated transport authority. In these circumstances, where arrangements have been put in hand for vital infrastructure based on the existing law and with the specific support of the Government, the provisions of the clause seem rather perverse.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) spoke about the potential impact on city deals at Second Reading. He asked the Minister directly why he was reneging on the deals that his Government signed by making the provisions on referendums and levying bodies retrospective. He said:

“The Secretary of State well knows that an important element of the Leeds city region deal was the establishment of a significant transport investment fund, partly funded by central Government and partly funded by the transport authority levy over 20 years. A year ago, the former cities Minister, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said that the deal was:

‘Giving cities the powers, control over resources, and funding they need to fire on all cylinders’”.

My right hon. Friend then asked a series of pertinent questions, including why the Minister was asking the House to undermine agreements on city deals; whether he would

“set out his assessment of the impact of his decision, and say what effect it will have on holding back investment in transport infrastructure and local growth in the city region”;

and whether that decision would

“undermine confidence in the city deal process…and harm the certainty on which sound financial planning and private investment rely.”

Finally, he asked the Secretary of State to

“clarify for the record that at the time the city deal was signed, he had no plans, and had had no discussions, about changing the rules on levying authorities”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 689.]

The answer, my right hon. Friend said, must be no, because if he had done so, it would have been necessary to make that transparent and clearly visible in the public arena.

My right hon. Friend was not alone in making those points. They were raised by a number of noble Members in the other place. The Local Government Association has voiced its concerns too, stating that:

“Effectively capping investment by city-wide transport authorities through council tax referendum could undermine the economic benefits of City Deals.”

The LGA cites an example:

“The West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Board is currently negotiating with its constituent authorities to increase its levy to fund transport infrastructure investment across Yorkshire. As a consequence of clause 39, local authorities in the area may either have to reduce their spending at a time when services are under pressure or trigger a referendum. Should a referendum be lost it would put at risk £750 million worth of investment and 20,000 new jobs.”

That is a significant concern. The LGA also points out:

“Local government has endured the steepest reductions over the current Spending Review with core funding falling by 43 per cent over the period of the current Parliament. There is a funding gap of £2.1 billion a year which could reach more than £15.6 billion by 2019/2020 based on additional topslicing. The current financial position of many councils is unsustainable in the medium to long term, and referendums on council tax are an unnecessary and a costly burden.

Under the current terms of the Bill, a levying body would not have to abide by the result of a referendum should it be triggered and subsequently lost. In effect the financial risk is on the local authority regardless of whether or not the increase in the council tax is a direct result of their financial decisions.”

Clearly that is an absurd situation. Had the provision been in force in the last financial year, seven authorities would have been forced to hold referendums, at a cost to the taxpayer of £7.3 million. The proposal adds further uncertainty to council finances and could lead to further reductions in essential local services.

As we have said, the provisions are retrospective. That is one of the LGA’s main concerns, because it is not fair to authorities that have taken decisions in good faith, based on the legislation in force at the time. The association says:

“There is a risk of perverse outcomes that will put growth generating investment at risk. Levying bodies are, by statute or local agreement, able to recover some or all of their costs by charging local authorities a fee for infrastructures or services. Local government in England is subject to a variety of different levying arrangements, covering significant regionally important issues such as transport and drainage, as well as a wide range of more local issues. There is enormous scope for perverse outcomes as a consequence of clause 39 going forward as part of this Bill.

The LGA is aware of a number of examples where the extension of council tax referendums is likely to cause instability and uncertainty”.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy supports the LGA’s points. Its director of policy said:

“The Bill tries to make levying bodies subject to the same referenda controls already in place for major preceptors and billing authorities. However, we are concerned that the mechanism chosen will confuse local accountability. The entire burden of any referendum is actually placed upon major preceptors and billing authorities despite the fact that they have no ability either to directly influence the amount of individual levies or require a body to reduce its levy as a result of a referendum.”

He went on:

“We are also concerned that the proposed requirement to factor in 2013-14 council tax increases into the referenda criteria for 2014-15 introduces an element of retrospection, potentially penalising authorities for decisions taken well before this Bill was published.”

I could not have put it better myself. That summarises the key issues really well.

The Minister therefore has a number of questions to answer. Why are the Government reneging on deals already signed by making the provision on referendums and levying bodies retrospective? Did they have any discussions or make any plans about changing the rules on levying authorities before or during the time when city deals were being signed? Does the Minister accept that including levies in the amount to trigger a council tax referendum will jeopardise the city deals that his own Government have approved? If a council tax referendum is lost and the levying body refuses to reduce its levy what does he expect a local authority to do?

When those concerns were raised in the other place, Baroness Hanham, the then Minister, said that she would look at them again; when they were raised in this House on Second Reading, the Secretary of State also said that he would look at them again; but as far as I am aware, nothing has come from the Government either to clarify the position on retrospection, or to make clear what a local authority would do in a situation where a referendum was lost and it was unable to make the changes necessary to reduce the amount of its council tax increase except by reducing the amount it takes itself from the council tax and as a result reducing its services. There are clearly questions here, I hope the Minister will give us answers this morning.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Amendment 149 relates to those local authorities that collectively enter into city deals—agreements with the Government on additional freedoms and financial certainties to promote local growth and skills—before the commencement of the provisions in the Bill. Its intent appears to be to place the transport levies, for example, for authorities taking part in a city deal outside the calculation of what constitutes an excessive increase in council tax. All other levies would still be included, including those relating to transport for other authorities. That approach was taken in an amendment tabled in the other place as well. The Government have not at any time agreed as part of a city deal to allow excessive increases in council tax without a referendum.

Let me be clear: this is not a retrospective provision. The Secretary of State considers all relevant factors when setting referendum principles, and those factors always include past council tax-setting decisions. The Government were clear before council tax and levies were set for 2013-14 that they may take account of council tax-setting decisions in setting future principles. However, no change will be made to the money raised in 2013-14 and both authorities and levying bodies can therefore plan for 2014 accordingly.

The system of council tax referendums that replaced capping—it is worth noting that the system of levies still had to work within the capping regime—was introduced to give the final say over large increases in council tax bills to local residents rather than central Government. Although some authorities would always want to be free to set any level of increase, the move from capping to referendums is widely accepted as being a sensible improvement. I understand that the Opposition are not seeking in Committee to change the basic principle of holding referendums, although I am sure the hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong.

One change that took place in the move from capping to referendums was to exclude the impact of levies on council tax increases. Arguments were put during the passage of the Localism Act—I remember the days of the Public Bill Committee well—that authorities had little control and influence over the size of levies, and that levies were relatively unchanged from year to year. Since 2011, however, we have seen levies increasing significantly more than other parts of the council tax bill: they increased by 5.2% last year alone.

We have also seen how local authorities and levying bodies have worked, and are continuing to work together, to meet the terms of the successive council tax freeze schemes, which include levies. Clause 39 brings those levies back into the council tax excessiveness calculations. That is something for which many local authorities—and, it is worth noting, the LGA—had lobbied. The amendment would seek to give authorities taking part in city deals additional financial freedoms beyond those already agreed as part of the deal, which would allow them to increase council tax levels further and bypass the need to get approval from local council tax payers for those increases.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

It is not our intention in the amendment to allow city deals to operate in a different way with other local authorities in the future; rather, it is to ensure that city deals already agreed are not undermined. We are confused by the Minister’s suggestion that no retrospection is implied. Our amendment is designed protect authorities from unpicking the deals already agreed, not to give them carte blanche to do different things with levies in the future.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that, with the rest of my speech, I can convince his my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to withdraw the amendment. It is clear that the Secretary of State has always been able to take past council tax setting levels as part of decision making for the future. I will touch on a good example of that in a moment, to give a clear outline of how that works. However, I was clear in my opening remarks about how the provision is not retrospective.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Our concern is that deals signed in 2013 might have a degree of levy increase that will apply from that year onwards and could be at such a level that a referendum would be triggered in a future year.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I will come on to give a good example of a city deal that was mentioned here and in another place as well, which will show that that should not be an issue. Equally, this provision is not retrospective and no city deals have been done which exclude the excessiveness principles for a referendum.

City deals are without doubt important. They represent local authorities coming together with Government to agree mature and well thought out proposals to deliver long-term improvements in local infrastructure and to encourage investment and provide training for the next generation of skilled workers. They are not and should not be vehicles for bypassing the right of local people to take a view on excessive council tax increases.

To come to the example I mentioned, the Leeds city deal was raised in the other place by Labour Members and the shadow Secretary of State on Second Reading. On both occasions, it was claimed that the clause would in some way undermine the city deal or make it unsustainable. There is no substance in that claim. I am happy to share figures provided by the local authorities that show that if the levy increases were passed straight on to local taxpayers in the form of higher bills, those increases would be affordable without the need for a referendum. That would amount to an increase of between 0.2% and 0.9% a year—well within the referendum principles.

Given the city deal’s ambitious programme of work, local taxpayers may support a council tax increase of up to 0.9% if asked. However, at that level a referendum would not be required; the authorities could instead take up the offer from Government still to freeze their council tax and receive a further freeze grant equivalent to an increase of at least 1%, which would more than cover the cost of the projected levy increase. Should Leeds, Bradford or any other council in the same manner wish to make representations about how the proposed referendums would apply to their particular circumstances, the Secretary of State will take those into account when asking the House to approve the final principles in 2014. The figures provided so far do not make a compelling argument for different treatment.

The Opposition claim that the Government are reneging on their agreements with authorities and that we approved large council tax increases as part of the Leeds city deal, for example. That is simply not correct. The Leeds city deal was not agreed on the basis that there would be large council tax increases for local people, nor on the basis of denying those people a say if Leeds or other authorities propose large increases. There is no contradiction between granting local government greater financial freedom and certainty in funding and expecting it to listen to and respect residents’ views about how those freedoms are exercised.

The Opposition did not table the amendment to make a case for a two-tier system of local government, in which a small number of local authorities can impose large, uncontrolled increases in taxation while those that keep services such as transport in house are required to listen to and take account of their residents’ wishes, but that is what the amendment would do. Based on the Opposition’s own figures, the Leeds city deal does not require large increases in levies or council tax, but if Leeds or other authorities wish to increase council tax to increase investment, for example, and go beyond what is set out in the deal, there is no barrier to their doing so as long as the local taxpayers, who have to bear the burden, are willing to accept it.

On the issue of retrospection, legislation already allows the Secretary of State to propose different referendum principles for different categories of authority. For example, in 2013-14 the House of Commons approved principles that gave shire authorities in the lowest quartile of charging additional flexibility to set an increase of up to £5, even if it took them over the 2% threshold. Each year, the Secretary of State takes account of all the relevant factors, including any representations, before proposing principles. That is an example of such a case. The amendment would not do anything new, but it would restrict how future principles are set. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. We will take this issue away and look at it again. We need to have further discussions with the LGA and others to ensure that people are clear that retrospection will not apply.

The Minister did not deal with the point about local authorities being unable to require levying bodies to keep increases low. I would like him to look at that issue again, because if a levying body refuses to reduce the amount of its levy increase, the burden is borne by the local authority, which must reduce its own services and charges accordingly. We do not think that is fair.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

There is also the issue that levying bodies are generally controlled by the same councillors. The amendment would create a potentially unfair situation in which councils that have an outside levying body are able to put up council tax more than those that keep services in house. It would therefore create a two-tier system, and we want to avoid that.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

That is a helpful clarification. We will look at what the Minister has said today in more detail. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 40 - Orders and regulations

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 40, page 27, line 30, at end insert—

‘() regulations under section [Access to local government meetings and documents] which amend or repeal any provision of an Act,’.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 134.

Government new clause 4—Access to local government meetings and documents.

Government amendment 135.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The amendments give greater rights to the public to access or report on local government meetings and documents. Before I talk about the details, I want to thank the hon. Member for Corby and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for supporting the instructions to the Committee to allow us to widen the scope of the Bill in order to debate the amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendments. I appreciate our conversations outside the Committee.

New clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the public’s access to the meetings and documents of local government bodies. Transparency and openness can be achieved only when people, including citizens and professional journalists, have adequate rights to attend their local government bodies’ meetings. Public meetings of local government bodies should be fully accessible to those who cannot attend in person, so that the public can hold those bodies to account.

We are introducing this measure because openness is an issue that fundamentally affects the lives of communities. We have already introduced greater transparency and openness to the meetings of the council’s executive, its committees and sub-committees through the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Although the regulations give local people more rights to attend meetings of the council’s executive and to access information relating to decisions made in those meetings, the same rights do not extend to the meetings of full council, its committees, sub-committees and joint committees, parish and town councils, and other local government bodies. On top of this, in recent months, there have been some disgraceful incidents when members of the public have been ejected from meetings simply for trying to film them.

For example, a council we have all talked about a great deal in the past couple of weeks, Tower Hamlets, barred a 71-year-old resident from filming owing to the risk of

“reputation damage to the authority”.

Keighley town council blocked residents from filming, because it would have been a

“breach of standing orders”.

Stamford town council banned journalists from tweeting at meetings owing to the risk of their

“not accurately portraying a debate.”

If we were all banned from tweeting across the Chamber, life would be somewhat less interesting, as we saw yesterday.

When I was a council leader in 2005, I introduced the webcasting of all meetings, and we noticed how the community can really benefit. On a cold winter’s night, if a member of the public is interested in a particular part of what can be a very long council meeting and they do not necessarily know which issues will take longest, instead of having to come along and sit through one hour to five hours of a meeting for an issue that could be at the back end of it, the member of the public can sit at home and watch it at their leisure. Also, in our system, they can send questions and messages if they wish. It opens up democracy to the public in a more accessible way in the modern world.

We now live in a digital world where the use of modern communication methods, such as filming, tweeting and blogging are widely embraced. There is no reason why such communication methods should not be welcomed, particularly for enhancing the openness of local government bodies.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Will the Minister outline whether any codes of practice should be adopted? The measure could be used in an unhelpful way. I support the notion of people being allowed to record and film in council meetings. Indeed, when I was leader of Derby city council, I set up the webcasting of our council meetings. It is important to have greater access, but will we have a code of practice to prevent abuse taking place?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is good that, as we saw on Second Reading, there is agreement throughout the House on the importance of transparency and how it can be beneficial. It is fair to say that people should not be able to disrupt meetings. At the same time, however, we must get the balance right, as the regulations will, and we shall talk to the LGA about that. We must make sure that an authority does not use disruption as an excuse to stop people filming a meeting in a non-disruptive sense.

I was shown an example on YouTube. A council somehow managed to “lose” the recording of a council meeting that was webcast on the internet. The council had the embarrassing situation that the chairman of a panel did not like what was going on and decided to leave. However, he had not actually ended the meeting, so somebody else took the chair and carried on. Amazingly, that disappeared from the webcast, but somebody videoed the meeting on their own camera, and they put it on YouTube. Nothing particularly exciting was going on, but the point is that if members of the public are allowed to film—I am not sure anybody knew this person was filming at the time—we can make sure that transparency survives.

I do take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board. That is why we will liaise with partners to make sure that the regulations are correct. We want to make sure that meetings are not disrupted, but, equally, that disruption cannot be used as an excuse to block fair and proper transparency. It is the inconsistent and unjustifiable excuses that councils occasionally use to refuse public access that we want the clause to address. Our intention is to make regulations that require local government bodies, including their committees, sub-committees and joint committees, to allow people to film, photograph, tweet and blog at their public meetings.

The regulations may also specify that any persons attending a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings should inform the relevant body of their intention before filming or photographing—the important word there is “inform”. They may also specify that government bodies may reasonably ask for the filming or photographing to be done in such a way that they are not disruptive to the good order and conduct of the meeting.

Allowing local people to attend and report on meetings of local government bodies will help them to understand the local decision-making process and empower them to be involved in making decisions that affect our lives.

Amendment 130 requires the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure when amending primary legislation. That will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the regulations before approving them through resolution. Where they amend secondary legislation, the negative procedure will be used.

Amendment 134 specifies that the power to make regulations will come into force two months after the Bill has been passed, as is the usual practice. As I said, the Government intend to work with the LGA and the National Association of Local Councils to cover the detail of the regulations.

Amendment 135 simply updates the Bill’s long title to reflect the inclusion of new clause 4.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

We support the clause. We were pleased to support the Government’s extending the scope of the Bill and introducing these provisions.

I read the 1988 debate about televising the House of Commons, and I noted Members’ sincerely held concerns that it could fundamentally change the character of the House of Commons and the way in which debates took place, and concerns that those changes to the way our Parliament functioned could harm our democracy. What Member of the House of Commons today would argue against televising the House of Commons?

Claire Perry (Conservative, Devizes)

There are some. [ Laughter. ]

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

One Member says there may be some, but I think there would be near-unanimity in the House of Commons that filming is the right thing for our democracy and that it is right for the public to see what we get up to. Even if we do not always give the best account of ourselves in the public’s eye, they can at least see the debates that take place, including in Select Committees and other forums around Parliament.

I have a confession to make, although I hope it will not come as a surprise to this particular group of hon. Members, with their experience of local government—many of them have been local councillors. I have availed myself of the webcasting my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North and the Minister introduced in their local authorities. During my research as a member of the Local Government Information Unit I did that to look at debates in not only my own local authority, but other local authorities around the country. Although I recognise that the viewership of local council webcasts is often quite small, the fact that they are there and that the public can see what is happening in their local council chamber is a source of strength for our system of local democracy and local government around the country. We should note, however, as I did when I was reading the 1988 debate, that there was some difference of view between longer-serving Members of the House of Commons at that time and a newer generation of Members who had more recently entered Parliament. The same could be said of councils around the country, and I note that two of the smaller parish councils were highlighted by the Minister as recent examples of where there had been a problem. We are aware that diversity is increasing in local government, and we would all hope to encourage that, but we are also aware that the generation that is leading the world of blogging and the use of online media is not as well represented in local government as those for whom that new world may be something of a challenge to their way of operating in the local council chamber.

In communicating that to local authorities around the country—I am sure that the Minister will agree with this sentiment—I hope that we would not, in any way, try to beat local councils over the head for not having already embraced the change, but rather that we would communicate with them persuasively about why this is a good thing in their local chambers, and why they should move quickly to ensure that they fully comply with the clause as it is introduced.

I want to add something to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made, and I thought the Minister’s response was welcome. We all want to ensure that the risk of disruption is minimised. For example, concerns have been put to me that a member of the public, because of their view about one particular member of the authority, could focus all their filming on that member even though the member may not be actively speaking or participating in the debate at a given time. That, in itself, may be something that an elected member of a local council might just have to grin and bear, but there is a point about fair and appropriate conduct by members of the public when they are in the council chamber.

However, the Minister struck the right tone, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree, in indicating that the bar would be high on disruption, and that it should not be used as an excuse by a local authority not to open up their proceedings properly. With that welcome assurance from the Minister, and in the knowledge that he will consult on and develop guidance in order to implement the provision, I welcome the clause, which enjoys the Opposition’s support.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I knew there would come a point in the Committee when I and the hon. Member for Derby North agreed wholeheartedly. It had to happen. We got there eventually, as I shall no doubt tweet later today.

On a more serious note, there is just one other point to make. I agree with everything that has been said, and I appreciate the support. It is important that local government and the public see that there is cross-party support for opening things up and ensuring that there is transparency, which, importantly, local government should embrace. The hon. Member for Corby is right about how we put the message across to local government. What I say to local government and put on the record is that this is not only about ensuring that there is transparency, so that the public can see what is going on and how councils spend money. As important as that is, local government should see this as a chance for great councillors around the country to show the good work that they are doing and how hard they work for their communities. Therefore, it is a positive step for them.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 40, page 28, line 2, leave out subsection (7).

I was caught out, Mr Weir, so much was I thinking about the benefits of open local democracy.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

You could withdraw the amendment.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

The amendment deals with a minor, technical point. Picking up on an earlier debate we had on hybridity, we wanted to ask the Government why they consider it necessary to include the provision in the Bill. From a sedentary position, the Minister urged me to withdraw the amendment. I have considered withdrawing it, because having had further consultation with the Public Bill Office, I now understand that such measures are common practice in order to ensure that the hybrid procedure is not used where we would not expect it. It is a different process from that envisaged for the regulations in the Bill. I ask for reassurance from the Minister on that point, but he will be encouraged to know that I intend to withdraw the amendment.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he needs. I will clarify for the Committee and the record the purpose and background of the provision. In relation to the specific power in clause 2, a hybrid instrument would be one that added to or removed from schedule 2 a body that exercised both public and private functions. The aim of the hybrid procedure in such a case is to ensure that there is consultation, and that the interests of private parties affected by such an instrument are adequately considered. For example, for an individual large organisation that carried out functions specific to certain areas, such as a crematorium board or a harbour board, the application of the hybrid procedure would be disproportionate and could significantly lengthen the time needed to make the relevant order, potentially delaying the inclusion of a relevant authority.

In earlier discussions, the hon. Gentleman noted that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented specifically on the provision. To clarify, the Committee did not raise concerns about its inclusion in the Bill, but noted that such a provision is usually accompanied by a commitment to consult affected parties, in place of the usual protections afforded by the hybrid procedure. Baroness Hanham, in the other place, made such a commitment in the Government’s response to the Committee report and I committed to doing so when we debated amendment 76 last week. I am happy to repeat that commitment today: I confirm that we fully intend to consult all affected parties should such an order become necessary.

As the hon. Gentleman outlined, such provisions are common practice, and as Baroness Hanham said in the other place, we expect the need to bring forward regulations that would affect bodies with both public and private functions to be rare. As with other legislation, it is sensible to include appropriate protection to ensure that if such regulations are needed in future, they are dealt with proportionately. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is happy to withdraw the amendment.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 41 - Interpretation of Act

Schedule 12 - Related amendments

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I beg to move amendment 66, in schedule 12, page 81, line 9, at end insert—

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 67, 152, 68, 131, 106, 132, 107, 133, 108 to 111, 69, 112, 113 and 70.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The amendments make minor and technical amendments to schedule 12. They remove redundant references to the Audit Commission and where necessary replace them with references to auditors appointed in accordance with the Bill. They also amend provisions in the Bill to avoid unintended outcomes. If the hon. Member for Corby is happy to support the amendments, I will stop at any point he wishes to intervene. Otherwise, I will outline them one at a time, because they are technical. I will leave that with him.

Amendment 66 makes a consequential amendment to the Transport Act 1985. It will remove the requirement that an auditor of a public transport company in England must be approved for appointment by the Audit Commission.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I am not sure whether the Minister misinterpreted my nod, which is to say that we understand that the nature of this schedule is to make a whole range of tidying-up arrangements to bring previous legislation in line with the Act and we understand that the Minister and his officials have done some good work to ensure that it is thorough, hence the amendments, which we will not oppose.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful intervention, which allows me to say that these minor and technical amendments remove redundant references clarifying related provisions that exist in legislation, as he rightly said.

Clause 43 - Power to make consequential provision

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 43, page 30, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

The Minister may be able to give me a simple explanation and reassurance and completely allay my fears, but I hope he will understand why the Opposition have tabled an amendment. As we read through the Bill and came to clause 43, we saw that it contains two subsections. The first says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such consequential, incidental or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with any provision of, or made under, this Act”.

That seemed to us to be reasonable. We could have a challenge around the procedure whereby those regulations would be made, and we had some discussion about Henry VIII clauses and so on, but it seemed to be a reasonable provision.

The second subsection did not seem so reasonable:

“The power in subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal or revoke any provision of or made under an Act (including this Act) whenever passed or made”.

That is either a necessary and technical form of words that the Minister can explain, or it is an extraordinary clause that renders our debate throughout the passage of the Bill redundant, in that it would grant the Secretary of State the power, in future, to amend, repeal or revoke any provision of, or made under, this Act. I assume that my simple reading of the Bill is wrong, and that that is neither the intention nor the effect of subsection (2) and I ask the Minister to clarify what its purpose and effect will be.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, I am mystified by this clause and I hope that the Minister can give us the reassurances that my hon. Friend has sought. Reading it as a simple person, as I have made clear in the Committee’s previous discussions, this seems to me to give the Secretary of State untrammelled power. I suggested when we were debating clause 38 that it seemed that the Secretary of State was basing himself on the supreme leader of North Korea and was looking to declare himself the supreme leader of local government. I think I suggested at the time that he was probably looking to change his name to Kim Jong Pickles.

As my hon. Friend said, we clearly have a curious situation. Why is the Secretary of State seeking a power

“to amend, repeal or revoke any provision of or made under an Act (including this Act)”?

It seems he can do anything he wants, and he makes that clear, just in case there was any doubt, by using the words “including this Act”. On a simplistic reading, that seems to imply, as my hon. Friend suggested, that we have been wasting our time here. Now, some of us might feel we have been wasting our time anyway, because the Government have not taken on board any of my hon. Friends’ sensible amendments. However, this provision seems to be a step too far.

I sincerely hope, therefore, that when the Minister responds, he can reassure us that the Secretary of State—Kim Jong Pickles—is not looking to become the supreme leader of local government, and that there is some perfectly valid and reasonable explanation why this power is being sought. I also hope he can tell us whether there is any precedent. It would have saved us spending a lot of time deliberating over the past few weeks if we had known before that the Secretary of State is, indeed, taking such a power and that he can, on the face of it, do whatever he wants. I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation of the proposition before us.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Normal service is resumed between myself and the hon. Member for Derby North; I was getting concerned that we were in too much agreement. I appreciate his comments about his humbleness, which he has made at various points in the Committee, and I will do my best to explain the provisions. I started life as a paperboy and then worked behind the bar in a pub, and my first proper job was in a warehouse, so I am pretty sure that I can match the hon. Gentleman in terms of coming from a relatively sensible background and that I can, therefore, explain the provisions in detail.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard and is present on Report, he will find that I have taken on board some of the comments that the Opposition have made, looked at various bits and pieces of them and given assurances on them. However, we can discuss that at a later date.

I hope I can give Opposition Members some reassurance on the clause and allay their concerns. Clause 43(2) enables existing secondary legislation to be revoked or amended. For example, it removes references to the Audit Commission from various statutory instruments. It is very unusual for such consequential amendments to be set out on the face of the primary legislation, as they can often be technical and numerous. Although we have captured all known consequential repeals and amendments of provisions in other primary legislation, further minor amendments may be required. Such amendments might be necessary, for example, to reflect the impact of certain provisions in secondary legislation made under the Bill.

I appreciate that both hon. Gentlemen may be concerned that the power in clause 43 appears extremely wide and, therefore, potentially attractive to any Secretary of State. It might be helpful to note, therefore, that similar provisions in a range of existing legislation confer power on Ministers and allow them to make consequential amendments to primary legislation. For example, the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 has a similar section, and a number of consequential orders have been made under it. In addition, section 116 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has a similar power. That provision has recently been used to enable the order that set up the Greater Manchester combined authority. Those are just two examples of similar provisions contained in recent enactments, and I hope that gives Members some reassurance that this is a standard provision.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

What the Minister is saying is very reassuring. Clearly, there is a precedent for including such a provision, and the intentions behind it are entirely understandable. However, are there any limitations on the process under which it may be exercised?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

As happened early in our proceedings, the hon. Gentleman has had a premonition of my very next words. I can give him that very assurance: any such repeal or amendment of any provision in an Act would require the Government to introduce regulations, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, debate in both Houses. Any amendment to secondary legislation would be subject to the negative procedure, so further scrutiny could be afforded to any such measures.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed no concern about the power when the Bill was considered in the other place. I hope that my explanation will enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I thank the Minister for his helpful response and clarification, which I believe satisfies the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North and myself. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 46 - Commencement

Clause 47 - Short title

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 47, page 31, line 40, leave out subsection (2).

I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. The amendment would remove the financial privilege amendment that was made on Third Reading in the other place and prevents the Bill, which was introduced in the other place, from infringing the financial privileges of the House of Commons.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I am indebted again to the Public Bill Office. When I queried why the subsection was present in a Bill that included provisions specifically on levies, for example, I received the very helpful explanation that it is common practice to allow a Bill to proceed through the House of Lords, so we will not oppose the Government’s move to withdraw the subsection from the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Appointment of auditor by specified person

New Clause 2 - Auditor’s right to documents and information of significant private contractors

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I tabled this new clause, which was previously tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Wills and debated there. It received some encouragement from members of the governing parties who were sympathetic to the intention behind it. I shall explain briefly why we believe that it would be helpful and in the interests of transparency, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister’s response is encouraging, given that at various stages there has been cross-party interest and support. For example, Lord Tope said the

“Liberal Democrats campaigned hard for freedom of information long before the Act was passed and have since been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of its provisions.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 1319.]

He also said that they had considerable sympathy for the new clause, a point that Lord Wallace of Saltaire also made.

The purpose of the new clause is to allow a local auditor

“a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies that the local authority have contracted significant services to during the last financial year…A local auditor must make available on request any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000”—

which would clearly make them available to the public. It seeks to define “private company” within the context of how freedom of information may apply in relation to the process of audit to say it would

“mean any legal entity, including joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations, mutually-held organisations and charities”.

Finally, it includes a sunset clause, which I hope the Government will see as a reasonable assurance on a number of points that I anticipate may be made—for example, around the cost implications of the clause and the likelihood that it may or may not be used in future. The sunset clause allows for a review of the impact and implications of the provisions that we hope the Government will agree to make.

The new clause is designed to bring greater transparency to the relationships between local authorities and the private contractors to whom increasingly large amounts of public services are being contracted out. Billions of pounds of public money are now at stake in these contracts. Our amendments are designed to bring greater transparency in tackling fraud, corruption, incompetence and inefficiency in terms of citizens’ rights to know about the services provided to them, and the taxpayers’ right to know about the services that they pay for. We have, I think, all agreed at various stages of our debate that local government and the relevant authorities concerned who are subject to the Bill in schedule 2, are generally bodies that conduct themselves—in their financial probity, their conduct and standards in public office, both of elected members and boards of those relevant authorities and of their officers—in a manner that we all want to see. However, we also all know that there are occasions when those organisations fall short, sometimes wilfully and sometimes because of maladministration or error.

The fact that the local authorities themselves are covered by the Freedom of Information Act does not always provide the necessary transparency for private sector bodies carrying out public sector work, and nor does the right of electors to inspect the accounts and audit documents, important though that is and although it is indeed provided for in the Bill. The Government have argued in the Lords that the transparency that is intended by the provisions here would increase costs. We argue that transparency can save money, and some of the work of the Audit Commission has saved billions of pounds of public money. There is evidence from local authorities around the country of how transparency—I think the general point is one that the Minister would support—can at times shine a light on areas of public spending that leads to savings to the public purse.

It is difficult to foresee how the use of these provisions would ultimately lead to some element of increased cost—perhaps to local authorities in responding to freedom of information requests. However, there is potentially some significant element of saving, which is why we have proposed the five-year sunset clause, which we hope is reasonable. Similarly, in the wording of the new clause we have deliberately included the word “significant”, to make it clear that the new clause is not intended to cover the provision of services by small businesses, nor the work of town and parish councils, as in those cases the new clause might be unnecessarily onerous in terms of cost.

I will say a few words about why we believe that the clause may be necessary. Local government in the United Kingdom controls around a quarter of all public spending and contracts out an increasing amount of services to private providers. It is responsible for making decisions about a number of areas where the interests of private companies are often in tension with the wishes of the electorate. For all those reasons, local government is inherently exposed to a large number of corruption risks. On the whole, local government navigates and mitigates those risks admirably, but the public will want to know that we in this place have done our very best to ensure that there is transparency about how they mitigate those risks and manage those contracts.

We have to recognise that the context is changing all the time. The Localism Act, for example, has changed some of the ways that local authorities are held to account by the public. Indeed, this legislation, in the removal of the role of the Audit Commission, changes the standards framework for local government. We do not intend to debate those today, because they have been the subject of debate in this House, but we want to merely note that that framework and environment is changing at the same time that there is increasing contracting out.

We want to acknowledge in the clause that the public trust elected council members and appointed council officers to carry out their duties in a way that serves the public interest. However, corruption can occur when officials use their power to influence decisions or policies or allocate funds in ways that they are not supposed to do and, at times, in order to achieve private benefit.

There is a notable case of a local authority, which I will not name as there is a dispute as to whether corruption has occurred. A Conservative MP has made serious allegations about contract management and corruption in a local authority in his area. We hope those allegations prove unfounded, but we must recognise that such concerns are sometimes there in the management of substantial contractual relationships with the private sector. We hope that all hon. Members will support our intention to shine a light, through the extension of freedom of information provision, on those private sector contractors.

Contracts between local authorities and private providers are often high value, complex and long term, and monitoring can be inherently difficult and likely to involve many discretionary judgments by officers and members. Officers and members of local authorities have to think about what is proportionate and appropriate in their management of a contract with a significant private provider. There is always rightly a matter of local discretion, for instance, in the extent of reporting back to meetings or boards of the local authority.

There is often a judgment about proportionality in very large contracts, just as there is a simple principle of proportionality in audit. A very large contract inevitably includes elements that involve the spending of public money where there can be little public scrutiny. Through the extension of freedom of information provision we would open that up to greater public scrutiny.

When services are outsourced, local authorities retain a statutory obligation to ensure that all of the rules that would have applied to them are equally followed by the external provider. The extent to which that obligation is fulfilled varies around the country. The route for making complaints about the provision of services by private sector providers and contractors may be much less clear to members of the public than if they were engaging with the local or other relevant authority about services directly provided.

I will truncate my remarks because the Committee has had a substantial debate on transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North has cited on a number of occasions the work of Transparency International that has influenced our thinking on the proposed new clause. The Minister may not share our concern about the level of risks that Transparency International has highlighted. However, there are other organisations that I hope he will listen to. The recent National Audit Office memorandum looking at major public service contracts states:

“Transparency is needed to ensure that no one within the contractor can hide problems and that it is in the contractors’ commercial interest to focus on their client’s (the government’s) needs.”

In the case of the proposed new clause, that would be local government and relevant authorities’ needs. The NAO reports that companies

“concentrate on maintaining shareholder value. Government needs to ensure that it is in the contractors’ financial interests to focus their control environment more widely on meeting the standards expected of public service”.

The Institute for Government states:

“The current pace and scale of outsourcing outstrips the ability of Whitehall officials to design and manage complex contracts effectively.”

Hon. Members will recognise that that is also the case in local authorities. The pace of change of outsourcing may make it difficult for local authority officers and members shaping the accountability around contracts to keep up fully in ensuring probity.

There is also support for our proposed new clause from the Audit Commission. In response to a consultation in 2011 on the future of local audit, in which the Government asked whether it was sensible for auditors to be brought within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the extent of their functions as public office holders, the Audit Commission said that that would be sensible, but that it would be

“necessary to make it clear that FOI requirements only apply to information held in support of the functions of local public auditors.”

The Audit Commission indicated that that applied to the current environment in which public audit is no longer confined to local authority services and spend, but covers a much broader landscape of organisations that spend and manage public money and provide public services.

I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause, as were Members of the House of Lords, and that the Government have had a chance to give it further consideration since it was discussed in the Lords. The new clause was one of the first that we tabled, to allow the Government time to consider it. We have sought to be proportionate. By including words such as “significant”, we have sought to eliminate some of the risks that the Government have highlighted, and our inclusion of a sunset clause is an acknowledgement that we cannot foresee all the likely effects of the measure. I hope the Government support the intention behind the new clause and consider how they might give it effect.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I rise to support my hon. Friend. Although all our amendments and new clauses have been important, I believe new clause 2 is one of the most important, and I hope the Government take it into account. Cost cannot be a justification for trying to remove transparency, because transparency is crucial. In addition, the assertion that the additional level of transparency would increase costs is unjustified. In the debate in the other place, Lord Wills said:

“At the heart of the Government’s resistance appears to be a belief that transparency increases cost. I addressed this argument at length on Report, by analysing the Government’s figures, which suggest that such costs are likely to amount, if at all, to an increase in a tiny percentage of the sums involved. The Government have not, so far, questioned my calculations. I also pointed out that transparency can save money often by revealing fraud and corruption, incompetence and inefficiency.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 1318-1319.]

Clearly, that is absolutely the case. My hon. Friends and I have spoken about the level of fraud and corruption sometimes committed against local authorities, which the Audit Commission has documented. Millions of pounds might be saved by increasing transparency.

I fear that the increasing externalisation of council services is a concerted attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which cannot be right. Transparency International states:

“Private companies, when operating services in the public interest, should be required to comply with the Freedom of Information Act with regards to those services. For example, and specifically, audit reports from local authorities should be covered under the Freedom of Information Act or published directly as public documents.”

That seems to me to be a reasonable request, particularly when the Government are committed to increasing externalisation and privatisation of our public services. Many Government Members do not like what they pejoratively refer to as big government, and they want to see a smaller state. If they genuinely believe in transparency, if they sign up to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and if they genuinely want to ensure that the public pound is used to the best effect—let us remind ourselves that every pound lost to fraud and corruption is a pound that cannot be used to pay for front-line public services—surely the new clause is desperately needed in the current climate.

I hope the Minister accepts the new clause, to protect the public purse and to ensure that the externalised public services being taken on by the private sector will be put under the searchlight of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We need to ensure we get value for money for services provided in the name of the public, whether those are provided directly by the public sector or by an arm’s length private sector organisation.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The new clause, as the hon. Member for Corby has said, follows considerable debate in the other place, in Grand Committee and afterwards. The hon. Member for Derby North outlined comments from Transparency International. As I said earlier, I met its chief executive yesterday and discussed some of the issues. To pick up on what the hon. Member for Corby has said, I have sympathy with the essence and ethos of the points being made. I hope he will bear with me while I talk about some specifics before discussing what I propose to do and how to move forward.

Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause would give local auditors a right to access audit documents of private companies to which local authorities had contracted significant services during the previous financial year. That is not necessary, because clause 21 already gives local auditors that right. Auditors have a right to access every document relating to the relevant authority that the auditor thinks necessary for the exercise of his statutory function.

Clause 22 supports that by making it an offence to obstruct the exercise of the auditor’s power; that is clear. That includes documents held by or relating to local authorities’ contractors, where those are necessary for the auditor to undertake the audit and other functions within the Bill. Subsections (1) and (2) are therefore unnecessary, although I do not disagree with their essential focus.

Subsection (3) would require auditors to disclose the documents in question on request, subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The provision is unnecessary as a wealth of information about contracts, accounts and the audit is already available to local people. First, the Government’s transparency agenda has transformed both central and local government, and transparency is a key design principle of the new local audit framework.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Why does the Minister think that Transparency International believes the undertaking of public contracts by the private sector should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had a conversation about the issue with the chief executive of Transparency International, as I did yesterday—going beyond just reading the documents. I commented that, of course the contracting body, which is still the local authority, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The transparency code for local government recommends that local authorities publish significant information about expenditure, contracts, grants, senior employee salaries, land and assets, meetings and decisions, and organisational information. That has been happening in the past couple of weeks at the Cambridgeshire fire authority. We are now minded to make parts of a revised transparency code mandatory, to embed further the principles of transparency into local government.

Secondly, local authorities are, as I have said, already required to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so we would expect them to release information relating to their audit when requested. Thirdly, the Bill maintains the current extensive rights that local people have to inspect detailed accounts, accounting records and audit information; and to ask the auditor questions and raise objections if they consider something is awry.

In some ways, those rights enable local people to access more information than would be made possible under the new clause. The new clause would require auditors to make documents available on request, subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That means that an auditor who holds the relevant documents can be required to release them, subject to the Freedom of Information Act exemptions.

In contrast, the existing rights of local people mean that if local people raise an issue, auditors can release the information they already hold and even seek additional information to investigate the issue and respond to the local resident. If necessary, the auditor has the ability to take a number of actions as a result of their investigations, such as issuing a public interest report.

My final point is that the Government do not consider that local authorities’ contractors, including local auditors, should be brought within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. That decision followed the Justice Committee’s recommendation following its post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act last year, which specifically considered how to deal with the contractors of public authorities.

The cross-party Justice Committee concluded that

“contracts provide a more practical basis for applying the Freedom of Information Act to outsourced services than partial designation of commercial companies under section 5 of the Act.”

The Government agree with the recommendation and think that a better approach would be for contracts to require contractors to assist public authorities in meeting their Freedom of Information Act obligations. With this in mind, the Government intend to issue a revised code of practice—as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Corby, I hope this will allay his concerns—that will encourage public authorities to include and enforce provisions in contracts to ensure that openness and accountability are maintained, and even go beyond the current Freedom of Information Act obligations by encouraging the release of a wider range of information about contract delivery.

We believe that such an approach strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and the need to minimise regulatory burdens on business. The Government and the Information Commissioner will monitor the success of this approach once the new code is issued in 2014. It is right that we should give the approach that we have already outlined time to bed in over the next year before deciding whether further action might be justified.

I reiterate that I agree with the intention to increase transparency. This Government have done more to increase transparency than any before, but I consider that the combination of the provisions in the Bill, the Government’s broader transparency agenda, and the Government’s intention to keep the Freedom of Information Act under review is a better approach. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was a helpful and thoughtful response to how we, in a proportionate way, extend the Freedom of Information Act in a changing world. I will withdraw the clause for two reasons. First, the Minister says that he sympathises with the intent behind it, and he has indicated that the Government are looking at the Freedom of Information Act and how and where it applies. Secondly, I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) intends to raise more broadly the application of the Freedom of Information Act to the private sector’s contracts with the public sector through another legislative vehicle in the coming weeks. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 3 - Comptroller and Auditor General prescribed persons

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I do not intend to delay the Committee for long on the clause, because we had a useful debate on schedule 11 and the disclosure of information at an earlier point in our proceedings, when we had tabled an amendment to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to be a named person in the Bill for the purposes of disclosure of information. The Minister gave us an encouraging response that he would go away and look at the three particular additions that we had sought to make to schedule 11, paragraph 2, where we had suggested additions around the disclosure of information. We hope that the Minister might introduce those additions, which could include the Comptroller and Auditor General, on Report. I urge the Minister to acknowledge such an important point, which we have raised on various occasions.

The matter was also debated in the Lords when Lord McKenzie made a strong case for the amendment as a stand-alone amendment. We have rehearsed it in relation to schedule 11, so I will ask leave to withdraw the motion, although I would welcome any response from the Minister before doing so.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Hopefully I can give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman needs. We do not believe that it is necessary to include the amendments in the Bill at this stage. The provisions relating to whistleblowing are set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999, which we intend to amend.

The Government committed in our response to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and in the other place to make the Comptroller and Auditor General and local auditors prescribed persons. We intend to do that by amending the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999 to ensure that local auditors and the Comptroller and Auditor General are named as prescribed persons for whistleblowing purposes following the closure of the Audit Commission. Hopefully, that will provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and it may also reassure him about the concerns he raised about schedule 11, on the disclosure of information. I therefore hope he will withdraw the clause.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4 - Access to local government meetings and documents

New Clause 5 - Parish meetings: parish polls

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 136.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to add provisions for the modernisation of parish polls. I want to put it on the record that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Corby for allowing us to widen the scope of the Bill to debate this amendment, which I hope he will support. We have had conversations outside the Committee, and I hope that there will be cross-party support for the provisions.

I do not wish to keep the Committee long, but I want to put a few things on the record. We seek to include these provisions in the Bill in response to amendments tabled in the other place by the Earl of Lytton, president of the National Association of Local Councils, who expressed concerns that the parish polling process is out of date and allows a

“vexatious pursuit of various hobby-horses”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. GC259.]

with “enormous financial consequences” for parish and town councils.

The amendment will give powers to the Secretary of State to make provisions about the number of electors needed to trigger a poll, and to define the subject matter on which a poll may be held. Currently, a poll may be demanded on any question arising from a parish meeting. A poll may be held either if the chairman of the parish meeting consents or if a poll is demanded by no fewer than 10, or one third, of the electors present at the meeting, whichever is less. Once a poll is triggered, it is carried out by a district council, and the costs are met by the parish.

Parish polls are an important democratic tool and we wish to preserve them. They are a useful way of gauging local public opinion on matters that are important to local people. However, we recognise that they currently operate in an archaic way, which creates barriers to participation. For example, at the moment voting hours are only between 4 pm and 9 pm, and there is no provision for either postal or proxy voting. Individuals can abuse the rules surrounding the trigger and the subject matter by holding polls unrelated to their local area, at substantial expense to the taxpayer.

New clause 5 will enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations detailed provisions to modernise the arrangements that govern parish polls. The new clause specifies that regulations may cover the arrangements for the conduct of a poll, the subject matter on which a poll may be held and the circumstances in which a poll may or must be taken. The Government intend to create regulations to extend the hours during which a vote may be cast, and bring the rules up to date by allowing, for example, postal voting. In line with the Earl of Lytton’s proposed amendments, we also intend to more tightly define what constitutes a legitimate topic for a poll. We will address concerns about the threshold for triggering a poll by, for example, specifying the number of local government electors who must demand a poll for one to be required.

The Government intend to consult widely on the content of the regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We intend to launch a scoping exercise early next year, followed by a formal public consultation. We hope to collaborate with and learn from the wealth of knowledge that the Earl of Lytton and the National Association of Local Councils clearly have on this subject. I appreciate the conversations I have already had with NALC.

Amendment 136 will amend the long title of the Bill to reflect the widening of its scope, which will allow new clause 5 to be added. These new measures will ensure that parish polls provide a legitimate method for local communities to have a voice on issues that directly relate to parish matters. They will increase participation by updating the archaic arrangements for the conducting of polls.

Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby)

I welcome again the way in which the Government have introduced new clause 5. At times the Government are criticised when new clauses are introduced very late in the scrutiny process, but in this case they are beyond such criticism because they have introduced a new clause in response to the House of Lords. They should therefore be congratulated on listening to the debate and the powerful argument made on the subject by the Earl of Lytton in the other place.

I am reassured to know that the National Association of Local Councils supports the changes to parish polls, which are very much about modernising practice. The Minister highlighted some excellent examples of the clear need to modernise practice. On a personal level I have long been committed to town and parish councils. I have many in my area—there are four market towns where the town councils play an incredibly important role, as indeed they do in many of the villages across east Northamptonshire. I know that they will welcome this modernisation of practice.

I must not miss the opportunity to urge the Minister to look further at some areas of modernisation in the conduct of parish councils, which I have raised with him in parliamentary questions. For example, I have asked about parish councils’ current inability to publish their agendas and minutes online because of concerns about outdated laws. I urge the Minister to look at such issues at the earliest opportunity.

Since this is the last time I will speak in the Committee, I thank you, Mr Weir, for your chairmanship of our proceedings. You have kept us on track, but you have done so in a kind and flexible way in order to allow us to give full consideration to all the clauses of this important Bill. I would also like to thank Sir Edward Leigh, who has also chaired some of our proceedings.

I thank the staff of the Public Bill Office, who have been incredibly helpful in translating our thoughts and intentions about amendments and our requests for clarifications about the wording and meaning of the Bill with their incredible expertise. I also thank them for their openness to meeting with us, talking with us and guiding us at all times of all hours. We are very grateful for that. I have really appreciated the work that they have done with my researcher, and I know that all Members feel similarly.

I thank the Minister and his officials for the work they have done, including between Committee sittings, when at times they have written to Members to provide further information. I had one such letter from the Minister today, which was very helpful in clarifying matters debated earlier in Committee. I must say to the Minister that although there are clear points of difference, some of which the Opposition will press on Third Reading, there are also areas where we have found considerable agreement. Where we have not, I have appreciated how the Minister has sought to provide clarification and reassurance on some of the issues raised and has, indeed, given a little ground at times in understanding where the Opposition are coming from. I hope that in that spirit we might see some further improvement of the Bill on Third Reading.

I would like to draw my remarks to a close by thanking in particular my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, all of whom have spoken and participated at various stages. I am incredibly grateful to them. This has been the first time I have led on a Bill for the Opposition, so their expertise and support has been extremely welcome. I want to say that on the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, although we have at times had real disagreement and occasional moments of tetchiness, we have also had some humour in the course of debating a very important Bill. I thank all Members of the Committee for that.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s support for the changes we are making to parish polls. I was going raise a point of order, but as we have reached the end of the Committee stage, if you will allow me, Mr Weir, I will take the opportunity, like the hon. Gentleman, to express my thanks to the people who have facilitated our proceedings, namely the Doorkeepers, Hansard and the parliamentary Clerks, who enabled us to go through this process.

I would also like to express my thanks to both of our Chairs—yourself, Mr Weir, and Sir Edward Leigh—who have robustly steered this Committee over some rather technical ground. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a very limited amount of tetchiness and, obviously, a great deal of good-hearted, good-natured and, at times, enjoyable discussion. It is important that we have had the chance for that.

I appreciate Members from all parties for taking the opportunity to make their expert contributions to the debate. I have been particularly blessed to have a fantastic team on the Government Benches, and I really appreciate the time and effort they have put in.

I am pleased that we have made good time with the Bill. All its provisions have received good, detailed, serious and well-debated consideration—very much what the Bill deserves. For that I would like to thank the usual channels for all the excellent work that has been done in allocating time, which has even allowed us to finish some sittings early over the past couple of weeks.

With that, I would like to thank everybody on my team again for all the support we have had. I think that we have done the Bill justice.

Title