Clause
75Approval
of revision by Secretary of
State
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 118, in
clause 75, page 54, line 27, leave
out subsection
(2).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 119, in clause 75, page 54,
line 31, leave out subsection
(3). Amendment
120, in
clause 75, page 54, line 36, leave
out subsection
(4).
Dan
Rogerson: In the hope that we can move swiftly on, I will
be brief. The amendments reflect our suspicion of the Secretary of
State’s role in overriding what might have been agreed under
arrangements already in place. We have said before that those
arrangements are imperfect, but if we are to have a slightly more
accountable system, we really prefer that it stand, rather than have
the Secretary of State able to nitpick every revision made by regional
bodies. It undermines the whole purpose of any form of regional
government in which local government is involved if the Secretary of
State can overrule it.
Mr.
Raynsford: We passed rather rapidly over the clause 74,
which required the responsible regional authorities to take account of
regional strategies in adjoining areas. In the event of the regional
body approving a strategy that is completely in conflict with that of
another region and that other region objecting strongly, the revisions
that the hon. Gentleman is proposing leave no mechanism for resolution.
Does he not recognise that there will be circumstances in which some
sort of higher authority has to take a look at situations in which
there is a conflict between the regional strategies prepared by
different regions? Frankly, it is not satisfactory to remove the role
of the Secretary of State without providing an alternative mechanism
for resolving such disputes.
Dan
Rogerson: The preceding clause refers to the need for the
responsible regional authorities to “have regard to”
certain matters. If they do not have regard to the matters listed, we
have a problem, because those strategies cannot come into force unless
the regions get together and resolve the
issue. I
am concerned about the fact that, as is often the case when discussing
such matters, if there is a reserved power for a Secretary of State in
a Bill, the Government say, “It will only be used very
sparingly, and you must trust us that it is absolutely fine.” We
tend to take a slightly more suspicious view, which is that the
instincts of Government and Whitehall are not to be charitable when
handed power, but to interfere more if the power is there for them to
do so. I think that we differ in our view of how Government
works. The
principle behind the amendments is to allow responsible regional
authorities to make amendments to their strategy. I am mindful of the
previous clause, which we did not oppose, and that there are other
issues that need to be dealt with. However, we hope that it will not be
for the Secretary of State to be involved with and sign off
everything.
Ms
Winterton: I can be brief because my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out one obvious scenario in which
the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendment would be to remove the
ability to sort out cases in which there were differences in regional
strategies between regions. If, for example, the responsible regional
authorities in one area do not agree, the Secretary of State needs to
have this power, because it is important that there is an arbiter.
Also, if any agreed strategy had completely ignored any of the
priorities set out nationally—perhaps through this
House—it is important for the Secretary of State to be able to
intervene in those circumstances. That is why I hope that the Committee
will not accept the
amendments.
Dan
Rogerson: One of the important reasons for tabling such
amendments is to get clarification from the Minister on the record
about the sort of circumstances in which the power would be used. We
have done that and we are mindful that people will now have something
to reflect back on in the future, and that, of course, any future
Secretary of State can be reminded of what was said if the Bill comes
into force. Although I am not entirely convinced that the power will
always be used in the way that the Minister has set out, I hope that
that is the case and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 55, in
clause 75, page 54, line 31, leave
out subsection (3) and
insert— ‘(3) If after
proceedings under subsection (2)(b) the Secretary of State proposes to
make any modifications to the draft they must
publish— (a) the changes
proposed, (b) the reasons for
doing so. (3A) Any person may
make representations on the proposed
changes.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 56, in
clause 75, page 54, line 44, at
end insert ‘including the reasons for making
any changes to the submitted draft
revision.’.
Dan
Rogerson: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and
Camborne and I were discussing earlier the principle I was debating
with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, which is that
the Liberal Democrats seem to see the worst in central Government and
the best in local government. When a party is in government, perhaps it
tends to see things the other way around. The principle behind
amendments 55 and 56 is to ensure that, where the Secretary of State
has the power to approve or not approve draft provisions—we have
moved on from the debate about whether or not the Secretary of State
will have that power—and intervene in that way, the reasons
behind his intervention and the type of changes that he wishes to make
are published for consultation, so that Secretary of State must consult
widely before taking any action that the Bill would allow him to
take.
Ms
Winterton: Again, I understand that the amendments may be
probing. However, they are unnecessary because the Bill already
requires that there is public consultation
before the Secretary of State finally approves the strategy and the
responsible regional authorities publish it. It has become established
practice to give reasons for any changes that are made to the draft
strategies. I hope that the amendments will be
withdrawn.
Dan
Rogerson: The Minister sees that the principle behind the
amendments follows on from the principle that we were debating earlier.
We must ensure that every opportunity is given to members of the public
to comment on revisions, which may well be significant. From the
viewpoint of Whitehall, they may not seem highly significant, but a
small revision to an overarching regional strategy could have huge
consequences for a community or area and be a very contentious issue.
We must therefore ensure that there is ample opportunity for people in
such areas to comment on any revision to the strategy that may affect
them greatly. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must accept the need
for that consultation and seek to consult as widely as
possible.
However,
having received those assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
45] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 75
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
76
Reserve powers of
Secretary of
State Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Dan
Rogerson: We have expressed suspicion about the Secretary
of State having reserve powers, but clause 76 is the heart
of the matter. In effect, it says, “If you don’t get on
and do it, we will impose a strategy or a significant revision to a
strategy.” I have concerns about that. Once again, I would like
to hear the Minister’s clarification of the purpose of the
clause and her explanation of the circumstances in which it might be
used.
Ms
Winterton: Clause 76 sets out the Secretary of
State’s reserve power to revise a regional strategy, in whole or
in part, where the responsible regional authority has failed to do so
at the time specified in regulations or
directions. The clause also makes a saving provision for any steps
already carried out in relation to a revision of an existing regional
spatial or economic strategy at the time that the clause is
commenced.
I know that
the hon. Member for North Cornwall will probably not agree with what I
am about to say, but we do not believe that the powers afforded to the
Secretary of State are excessive. Indeed, the Secretary of
State’s powers in this part of the Bill are broadly similar to
those in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The only wholly new powers
are in relation to the leaders’ boards, but that is because the
mechanism is a new
one. 6.15
pm
Dan
Rogerson: Will the Minister explain subsection
(6), which
states: “If
the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to do so the
Secretary of State may at any time revoke all or any part of a regional
strategy”? “Expedient”
is an interesting word, and although it might be customary in such
cases, it seems a little wide-ranging. To revoke all or any of a
regional strategy is the nuclear option. We have a whole Bill about
consultation and involving people, but this tiny little subsection
effectively says that if the Secretary of State does not like it, we
can rewrite the whole thing at a moment’s notice. That is a
problem.
Ms
Winterton: Again, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I
suspect that he will greet this with hollow laughter—that we
intend that the Government will use reserve powers sparingly and as a
last resort. I do mean that. Obviously the word
“expedient” implies that there would be extremely good
reasons for doing so. I must emphasise that the Government have taken
enormous steps to devolve power to regional authorities. It is not the
Government who, throughout the course of the Bill, have voted against
the ability to draw up regional strategies and for there to be
democratic accountability through the leaders’ board.
We want to
see the strategies working effectively. There is no reason why they
should not, because we believe that this is a good way to deliver
economic prosperity and improve competitiveness in the regions. The
principle here is that things have to be done at regional level. The
circumstances in which the Secretary of State would wish to intervene
in such a way would necessarily be as a last resort, and we believe it
is important to have these powers as that last
resort.
Mr.
Lilley: Will the Minister elaborate a little on a point
that I think she made: the reserve powers here are similar to existing
powers. As far as I can see, the reserve powers here allow the Minister
to revise a regional strategy only if the relevant authority has not
done so. I get the impression that, at present, the Secretary of State
can revise a regional strategy, even if the regional body has itself
revised it. Perhaps she will acquaint me with what the change in the
Bill is, or what the existing legislation
is. I
will give the Minister a case in point. The regional spatial strategy
covering Milton Keynes to Luton was prepared, revising the existing
strategy, and published.
Naturally it did not include Hertfordshire because that is not part of
the area. The relevant councils then decided to revise it and to
include among their preferred areas of development parts of north
Hertfordshire that had not been in the existing area. Indeed, they held
a meeting with the developers proposing to build in my area with Luton
council. People from her Department were there, although I do not blame
her because she was not in the Department at the time. This secret
meeting was held without inviting North Hertfordshire district council,
in whose area they were planning to
build. Is
the Minister saying that the councils were acting outwith their powers?
This clause would not give them such powers. Will there be an
improvement on the present situation in such circumstances? Will the
clause prevent the Secretary of State from getting into bed with local
authorities that are re-revising their strategy after they have been
through all the
consultation?
Mr.
Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Lilley: I give way to the defender of the
indefensible.
Mr.
Raynsford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I
simply refer him back to clause 75, which we approved a moment ago and
provides for the circumstances about which he is concerned. Clause 76
simply makes provision for a failure by the responsible regional body
to come forward with a regional strategy. In such circumstances, the
Secretary of State has to act because of the failure of the regional
body to produce a
strategy. There
are circumstances at present in which the Secretary of State may make
revisions to a strategic document prepared by a regional authority that
is in some way defective. However, as I said, that is covered by
clause 75. I hope that I am not defending the indefensible;
I am simply pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have
missed a
clause.
| 
