Mr.
Curry: I seek clarification. My understanding is that the
central decision-making unit, to put it that way, would be composed of
nominated members of the regional development agency, although perhaps
not all the members. However, in the case of Yorkshire and Humber,
there would presumably be eight members. The other half of the board
would consist of people who were exclusively elected local authority
representatives so that there would be a balance between the quango
representatives and the local authority representatives. Are we now
saying that the leaders’ board may include people who have not
been elected? Secondly, does the Minister have any guidelines in mind
as to whether or not there should be some broad political balance among
those people who are elected to serve? It is easier to achieve that in
some parts of the country than others. It would be quite difficult to
do that in the south-east at the moment, but there have been times when
it would have been difficult in the north-east, for example.
Alternatively, is a desire to seek political balance not a relevant
consideration?
Ms
Winterton: Taking Yorkshire and Humber as an example of
how the scheme has been drawn up, there has been agreement in that
region to have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, eight members of the
leaders’ board out of approximately 22 local authorities. That
has been agreed by the local authorities and all councillors who are
represented. Below that, there are a number of subsidiary boards
relating to housing, transport, planning and economic
regeneration—those are roughly the advisory
committees. In
Yorkshire and Humber—I am sure this applies to other regions as
well—there has been a keenness to involve people who might
previously have been on the regional assembly. That is sometimes
achieved as part of a scrutiny role, and sometimes there has been
consideration of co-opting people on to some of the boards that have
been established, such as people from the voluntary sector and the
trade union movement, and representatives of the faith movement or
environmental groups. There are a number of ways in which people can
remain involved in the decision-making
process.
Mr.
Curry: But the holding company—if I may use that
expression—that makes a decision is composed exclusively of
members of the regional development agency and elected local authority
representatives, whether or not they are leaders of individual local
authorities.
Ms
Winterton: The current interim bodies have to abide by
existing legislation, which requires the regional planning body to
include other stakeholders. However, as I have said, regions such as
Yorkshire and Humber have been keen to ensure that other voices are
heard, whether by scrutiny or by the ability co-opt members, as
sometimes happens. The new legislation itself will not require other
stakeholders to be involved, but I think there has been sensitivity
about ensuring that people do not feel that they have been excluded
from the drawing up of regional strategies. In fact, people felt that
there was a good reason to have a regional strategy on the environment
and other areas.
We are aware
that the leaders’ board schemes might, outside the scheme
itself, want to involve other stakeholders in scrutiny, or involve them
through the local authority structure. We will also make it clear in
our early advice about the leaders’ boards that we expect the
inner leaders’ board—if you like—to be made up of
elected members. We are keen to ensure that there is sensitivity about
the fact that there are many other groups and organisations that want
to have an input—they have already been doing so through the
assemblies. We will therefore look at how we can encourage scrutiny of
proposed plans.
Mr.
Curry: There is no point in getting rid of the existing
regional assemblies if, in practice, they are then duplicated in the
new structure. May I be absolutely clear that the main decision-making
body will be exclusively made up of RDA and local authority people who
have been elected and have their own mandate, and that whatever
subsidiary bodies they bring in, that central core remains exclusively
elected people on the
RDA?
Ms
Winterton: That is what I have just said. I will say this
again if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to: the early advice
will make it very clear that we expect the leaders’ board to be
made up of elected members. Having said that, I think that the clause
is the right way to get a balance between elected democratic
representation and the strategic focus of the regional development
agencies. I hope that the Committee will support the
clause. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
7.
Division
No.
38] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 68
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
69Responsible
regional
authorities Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I rise to make a few brief comments. We
discussed on the previous clause the extent to which leaders’
boards and the indirectly elected representatives who, it now seems,
will sit on them give a gloss of legitimacy to the work that the RDAs
undertake. The clause reveals who actually is in charge. Although on
earlier clauses we asked, “Is this really necessary?” the
key question in the next few clauses is, “Who is in charge of
the process?” The clause makes it clear that the RDA is the
first among equals in the partnership between it and the
leaders’ board because, if I understand the clause correctly,
the leaders’ board can be suspended and, if that happens, the
RDA stays in
charge. Our
earlier amendments tried to firmly establish that even though the
leaders’ boards were indirectly elected—we wanted to find
ways to make them more directly and democratically representative and
accountable—the responsible regional authority had some kind of
democratic legitimacy and would not be overpowered by the RDA. Our main
concern about the clause is that it will still give a huge amount of
power to the RDA and undermine a clear chain of
accountability.
Mr.
Jackson: I support the hon. Lady’s comments because
this short clause seems to encapsulate a fundamental dichotomy between
what the Minister says is its purpose, which is essentially to require
the leaders’ boards and RDAs to act jointly, and its substance.
Subsection (2) is effectively open-ended. It could give rise to an
open-ended arrangement whereby a leaders’ board is unable to
operate effectively for unspecified reasons, which may come to light
and we may have more information about via regulation. We do not know
on what basis that might happen—it might be a problem with a
group on the board having an agenda over regional issues at variance
with another group on the leaders’ board, or it might
be a financial or organisational issue.
5pm
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we
highlighted in our discussion the need, wherever possible, to give
discretion and freedom to local authorities to develop appropriate
arrangements in their areas. The Government’s intention is that
local authorities should have a good measure of discretion, within a
framework that ensures that the new leaders’ boards work and
that is subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Is the hon.
Gentleman suggesting that that is wrong, that there should be no such
discretion and that there should be no scope to have different
arrangements and, if necessary, to decide not to have a leaders’
board? If that happens, the means to continue the arrangements must be
in place. Unless the regional development agency is in a suitable
position, we could be in stasis. Does he recognise that the measure is
a necessary safeguard against that?
Mr.
Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman makes some key
philosophical points about the relationship between local and central
Government, but that is not relevant to subsection
(2).
Julia
Goldsworthy: I wonder whether the right hon. Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich has got things the wrong way round. The previous
clause requires leaders’ boards to be established and gives the
Secretary of State the right not to go ahead with them. Whether or not
they are established is within the gift of the Secretary of State, not
the local authority.
Mr.
Jackson: The hon. Lady comes to my point before I
do. Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Jackson: I shall make a little progress and then give way
to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he does not wax lyrical about
transport policy in Greater Manchester.
Ian
Stewart: That is my job.
Mr.
Jackson: It is the hon. Gentleman’s job, but
perhaps not in this Committee. The issue is about the Secretary of
State’s powers. The practical ramifications of the clause are
that the Secretary of State could maintain an open-ended arrangement in
which there was an RDA but no leaders’ board ad infinitum, thus
subverting the democratic voice of local people. Incidentally, we would
like to say on record that the regional assemblies do not get a
mention—they are dead and buried in a schedule—so, in
terms of democracy, they are gone. The subsection allows the Secretary
of State, if he or she wishes, to have only the RDAs making decisions,
and that situation could drag
on. The
Royal Town Planning Institute in particular draws attention to the lack
of a dispute resolution process. The Minister may say that that will be
covered by regulations, and I will accept that in good faith. There may
be contested policy positions that will not be improved if a
leaders’ board is not in situ and the RDA is governing alone.
There may be delay and deadlock as a
result.
Ian
Stewart: I point out that there are integrated transport
issues in the
Bill. I
am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s line. First, he put it to
the Committee that leaders’ boards may not go ahead by local
decision, and he then accepted an intervention from the Liberal
Front-Bench spokesperson who said that the decision-making power was
with the Secretary of State. How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those
two
positions?
Mr.
Jackson: I am merely reading the relevant subsection. If
there is any inconsistency in the argument, it is in the drafting of
the Bill and this clause in particular. I hope the Minister will
clarify the situation; but as it stands, we have serious
concerns.
Ms
Winterton: Clause 69 identifies the responsible regional
authorities referred to throughout the remainder of this part of the
Bill as the regional development agency and the leaders’ board
for the region. Subsection (2) is quite explanatory. It
states that
“if during any
period after the coming into force of this section there is no
leaders’ board for a
region”— for
example, if the local authorities cannot agree on the constitution of a
leaders’ board, or if nobody in the region wants to
participate—the responsible regional authority will be the RDA
on its own. We do not want that to happen—we want
leaders’ boards to be properly constituted—but we have to
plan for an eventuality where the leaders’ board breaks down or
has not been properly constituted, to ensure there would be a
responsible regional authority in the area. There is nothing sinister
about that; it is a fail-safe in the Bill for the reasons that I have
set out. That is why I urge the Committee to support clause
69. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
39] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 69
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
