Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 215: 215: Before Clause 121, insert the following new Clause— ““Contractors’ duty to cooperate (1) Where any private or voluntary organisation is funded by a local authority to provide a public service or function, that organisation shall be subject to local authority scrutiny by the same council, in relation to that service or function. (2) This shall include— (a) provision of information to a relevant overview and scrutiny committee, as defined by the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), (b) attendance at a relevant overview and scrutiny committe to answer questions, (c) a requirement to consider any report or recommendations of an overview and scrutiny committee, and (d) a requirement to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee indicating what (if any) action the organisation proposes to take.”” The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 and 217. These amendments take us to the area of overview and scrutiny. Amendment No. 215 deals with who shall be subject to the attention of an overview and scrutiny committee. The amendment proposes that this should extend beyond the immediate local government family to others who provide services. The White Paper stressed the need to expand competition and to have a diversity of providers. I think that it said that service deliverers should not be protected from public scrutiny. The requirement could apply to contractors delivering services through contracts and companies involved in public/private partnerships, which are a very topical issue. I say in parenthesis that the Greater London Assembly has paid some attention, and will pay a good deal more, to the London Underground PPP with Metronet. However, it is a bit early to apply the word ““legacy”” to the new Prime Minister. The amendment could apply also to PFI consortia, joint ventures, strategic service delivery partnerships and so on. The Bill extends councils’ scrutiny powers to enable them to require the attendance and engagement in scrutiny of public service bodies defined as ““partner authorities”” in Clause 106. Partner authorities have a duty to co-operate in the context of local area agreements. They are required to take part in scrutiny and to have regard to scrutiny recommendations where the scrutiny report or recommendation relates to a local improvement target in the local area agreement. Amendment No. 216 would strengthen the duty to take part in scrutiny by requiring participation in scrutiny meetings as well as the provision of information. I am sure that the Committee will understand that it is not possible adequately to scrutinise an activity unless one can ask questions. Simply receiving written information is not enough. Amendment No. 217 would extend the scope of scrutiny to require the participation of partner authorities more broadly on issues which are of specifically local concern. This area was debated in Committee in the Commons where the Minister referred to the first of my amendments as being ““unnecessary and potentially bureaucratic””. She added that it ““could undermine accountability””. She raised an interesting point. Is it confusing and does it dilute accountability to require contractors to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees, as she said? She talked about encouraging, "““a culture in which partner authorities could shift responsibility away from the organisation holding the agreement with the council and on to the contractor””.—[Official Report, Commons, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 22/2/07; col. 380.]" It is interesting to note where the balance lies in this. Intellectually, one should hold to account the partner authority which engages the contractor. That is absolutely right. But in a world where we look to contractors to do so much work for local communities, and where they are brought in by the local authority, it is right to consider whether the contractor should be subject directly to the scrutiny function. Contractors would also be witnesses, as it were, in this structure. What they have to say in explaining how things are working as part of the total picture is important. I should like to think that the Minister’s comments in the Commons constituted a rowing back from contracting out services, but I suspect that they were not. The Minister in the Commons also talked about overview and scrutiny committees being able to investigate any issue, to decide for themselves what they wanted to do and to ““ask anybody to attend””. She referred to ploys that an overview and scrutiny committee might use to shine the spotlight on an unco-operative contractor. That is all very well. She referred to the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, did not accept an invitation to appear on the programme ““Have I Got News For You”” and a tub of lard was put in his place. However, you can do that only once. The formal arrangements and powers are important. I would not want to symbolise the shortcomings of local government members by putting tubs of lard in their places and recording that in the minutes. I do not think that is the way to go. I beg to move.