[back to previous text]

Mr. Goodman: It might be a reflection of what a sad individual I am, but I have found this debate absolutely fascinating. It has been fascinating not because of anything I said, or even, with due respect, because of anything the Minister said—after all, we are both toiling workers in the vineyards respectively of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The debate has not even been fascinating because of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, well informed though she always is. It was compelling because of the exchanges between those two old rivals and friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.
Mr. Curry: The mastodons.
Mr. Goodman: Mastodons is the word. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has been far more loyal this afternoon than he was with those ridiculous petition clauses when he voted the wrong way—I should say the right way, by accident or design. Of course, he meant what he said this afternoon.
There was a profound difference of philosophical approach that might illustrate what will happen when we reach the general election, whenever that is. On the one hand, my right hon. Friend says, “What’s the LGA for? What’s best practice for? Leave councils to their own devices and standards will be driven up as they look at what each other do. A thousand flowers will bloom and by some organic and almost ecological process, all will turn out well,” to which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says, forcefully, and with every rhetorical device and all the expertise at his command, which is a great deal, “It won’t work. You need the benign hand on the tiller of central Government.” He is wise enough to know that the hand must not be applied heavily, but his position is that we need the hand and for it to be applied lightly—we cannot simply devolve.
That is the difference between the approaches of those two very experienced parliamentarians, both of whom are very knowledgeable in their fields. It will be the big difference at the next election, as has been illustrated by these tiny—
Julia Goldsworthy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Goodman: I knew I would not get away without letting the hon. Lady in.
Julia Goldsworthy: It is interesting for the hon. Gentleman to pose those diametrically opposed philosophical positions, but I am sure that the electorate will cast its mind back to the track record of the previous Conservative Government, and find that they probably did not take exactly the approach he described. They might actually have engaged in a small amount of centralisation of local authorities. Does he agree that we should take with quite a large pinch of salt his portrayal of the positions of his party and the Labour party?
Mr. Goodman: I am willing to throw a pinch of salt over my shoulder if the hon. Lady will throw a pinch of salt over hers and concede that the Liberal Democrats have never been in government, so they do not have to take such decisions. We cannot automatically assume that, had they been, they would not also have been tempted occasionally to tread the primrose path to the hell of centralisation, so she ought to have a little care. However, whether she thinks that such positions are those of the two main parties or not, they are the opposites in the debate. Naturally, we keep to our position and intend to press our amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.
Division No. 27]
AYES
Curry, rh Mr. David
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
NOES
Cooper, Rosie
Efford, Clive
Heppell, Mr. John
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Stewart, Ian
Watts, Mr. Dave
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.
Division No. 28]
AYES
Cooper, Rosie
Efford, Clive
Heppell, Mr. John
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Stewart, Ian
Watts, Mr. Dave
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
NOES
Curry, rh Mr. David
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Powers of National Assembly for Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Goodman: This is a significant clause. Those members of the Committee who do not possess any special expertise in Welsh affairs—of whom I have to confess I am one—may be tempted to let it slip by without debate. However, it is significant and it gives rise to some questions.
The Minister has not risen to speak, so I shall say a word or two about what the clause seems to do. It sets out a series of framework powers which would extend the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly by inserting some new matters in field 12—the powers that councils in Wales are allowed to exercise. As the briefing from the Assembly says:
“The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill is an opportunity for the Assembly Government to seek framework powers that will enable it to bring forward proposals for legislation in respect of governance and overview and scrutiny.”
After all, as the brief also says:
“The Welsh Assembly Government can only go so far within the existing legislative framework.”
So, new powers mean new competencies. The brief sets out what those are:
“In effect, the Welsh Assembly Government wishes the Assembly to have legislative competence in the areas covered by the provisions of Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. This Act introduced different models for executive arrangements, including the Mayor, Cabinet and Leader and Cabinet models. The executive became responsible for most local authority functions, working within a policy framework set by the full council. The 2000 Act also brought about the creation of overview and scrutiny committees”—
which we have just been considering—
“made up of non-executive (‘backbench’) councillors, to scrutinise the work of the executive as well as reviewing policy within and without the council itself as they affected the local area. This legislative competence would enable the Welsh Government to give effect to its policies in this area following consideration of the Beecham Review and the outcome of research commissioned into the role and function of elected members in Welsh local government.”
I think the key question that arises from this, which this Committee ought to consider, and certainly should have an interest in, is what powers the Welsh Assembly Government, or WAG—not to be confused with other WAGs—wish to exercise. I should therefore like to ask some questions about the intentions of the Assembly Government, given—and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this—that a Welsh Assembly Government Minister came to brief the House informally on Tuesday on the measures that they wish to pass if the clause is enacted. I am not aware—and I have checked with the other Opposition party and I believe that it also is not aware—of any briefing for this Committee. Will the Minister outline how the process between the Assembly Government and this Parliament is supposed to function and explain why—if I am correct, and I accept that I may have been misinformed—no one from this Committee was made aware of the briefing.
Apparently, the Welsh Assembly Government, the WAG, wish to enact certain powers. They wish to establish
“joint scrutiny committees between neighbouring authorities”,
The Welsh Assembly Government would apparently like to abolish whipping in scrutiny committees, although how that will be achieved is not clear. Perhaps the Minister could provide an explanation. Could the Minister explain what the Welsh Assembly Government intend to do with such powers? If they are devolved in relation to the proposed redesign of political structures, will local councils be, in some way, forced to adopt structures set by the Welsh Assembly Government?
Then there is a desire of the Welsh Assembly Government that is hard to understand. They wish to strengthen
“the role of the citizen through councillor calls for action, by which local communities can combine with their local councillor to ensure a matter is addressed by the local authority”.
I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification, and, if she cannot do any of that instantaneously, or if the necessary inspiration does not reach her quickly enough, perhaps she will be able to write. We look forward with interest to hearing what she has to say.
2.15 pm
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will certainly ask the Welsh Assembly Government to write to the hon. Gentleman. I personally have not met any of their members. I understand that a briefing on a framework power was held on Tuesday 9 June at 3 pm, and that it was publicised to hon. Members when most of us would have been preparing for our afternoon sitting. I can only apologise for that. The policy will be subject to consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. We intend to give them the powers to decide their decision-making regime. As he will know, we have specifically excluded from the Bill anything in respect of direct elections to executives of county and county borough councils in Wales or the creation of a form of executive requiring direct elections. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him with the information that he requires.
Mr. Goodman: On the basis of what the Minister has said, we would be minded at this stage to let the clause pass. We may wish to return to it on Report.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will certainly ensure that full information is available before we reach that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Goodman: It might have helped the Committee if the official Opposition had made it clear at the start of the previous chapter of the Bill that we regarded it as relatively uncontentious. We take the same view of the local government boundary and electoral change parts of the Bill.
Julia Goldsworthy: I echo those comments. The previous chapter that has just been accepted mainly applies the same standards implemented under the Companies Acts to local authorities. It is entirely sensible for there to be that mirror. This part of the Bill seems largely uncontroversial and sensible. Speaking as an MP who represents an area that has been covered by local government reform and has been undergoing the boundary-making process, I think that the proposals contain sensible amendments. I do not think that they would have resolved all the problems that we experienced in Cornwall, but they address some of the issues and are a big step forward towards a process that will be more timely and will give people confidence in the electoral process. We broadly welcome many of the proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 54, 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 12 June 2009