 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] |
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mick Hillyard,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 18 June 2009(Morning)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]Clause 85EPBs
and their
areas 9
am Question
(16 June) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Good morning, on this wonderful summer day. If
hon. Members want to remove their jackets to feel comfortable, they may
do
so. Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I am delighted that
we have all arrived in good order, at the right time and in the right
place. Some of our constituents would no doubt find that a signal
achievement.
We are now
coming to provisions in the Bill that are, on the whole, helpful and
sensible. The measures envisaged are not compulsory for local
authorities, and their design is significantly left to those
authorities, so we are moving away from the very prescriptive elements
of the Bill. I am more comfortable with that. We should, however,
recognise how complex the landscape that we are designing is.
If people
were to take advantage of the opportunities presented by everything in
the Bill, the landscape of power and authority in the regions would
have the regional strategy at the top. Then there would be the two key
elements—the leaders’ board and the regional development
agency; a constellation of subsidiary, advisory so-called stakeholder
bodies serving those; and the multi-area agreements, with or without
statutory powers, or with or without attitude, as one might put it.
Local area agreements would persist as well. There would be the
economic prosperity boards, which might well incorporate transport
bodies; there would be the Leeds and Manchester pilots, which might
eventually lead to a more coherent form of city region; and underneath
there would be the local authorities. Leaving London aside, those
include the unitaries, the metropolitans, the districts and the
counties, so they are quite a constellation. When I look at that
landscape, it isn’t half complicated.
That gives
rise to two issues. The first, and perhaps the minor one, is that I
suspect what is happening is a bit of a recipe for the empowerment of
officers. Many councillors would find it difficult to find their way
through, and that would put a huge amount of power in the hands of the
officers who will be riding shotgun on the new system.
Secondly,
there is a question of accountability. We can see the common sense in
multi-area agreements, but the bodies involved are, to a significant
extent, not accountable. It is easy to see a logic when that is all put
together, but if the question is turned around and things are looked at
through the other end of the telescope, by asking how the citizen
relates, finds a way in, or finds a voice, it is quite difficult. I do
not think we have cracked the central issue of how to build in
accountability to structures that are not accountable at a classical
national or local level, but which sit between those levels. We still
need to deal with that.
A lot of the
clauses refer to the tutelage of the Secretary of State. That is
inevitable and inescapable, for two reasons: first, because local
government still functions significantly on money that is voted by the
taxpayer at national level—the grants to local authorities are
still a significant part of their funding; and secondly because local
government bodies carry out statutory duties, and, indeed, some of the
proposals will enhance those. Therefore it is inescapable that the
Secretary of State should be the ultimate accounting power in relation
to delivery by those statutory bodies. I hope that we shall not get too
hung up on that, because I venture to doubt whether, if a future
Government—perhaps of a different complexion from the present
one—were to put forward measures in this context, the relevant
part of the architecture would be significantly
different. I
am sorry if I have been giving a sort of Second Reading speech, but, as
we are about to discuss economic prosperity boards, I think they must
be seen in the context of the extraordinarily complex and, in a sense,
quite confusing structures that are likely to be created. We must ask
ourselves who will manage them and how, at the end of the day, Joe or
Jane Citizen will relate to
them.
The
Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination (Ms Rosie
Winterton): I welcome you back to the Chair,
Mr. Amess. As most of the speakers have indicated, the
economic prosperity boards address some of the points raised earlier in
the debate. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon talked about
local authorities’ ability to have a sub-regional economic
structure, and the economic prosperity boards provide for that
approach. I
want to stress two things. First, the EPBs and combined authorities
will be completely voluntary for all councils. We believe that they
should be formed only where there is a serious commitment to joint
working at the sub-regional level. There has to be that commitment or
they will not be particularly effective.
Mr.
Curry: There is just one point of detail that I would like
clarified. I read carefully the policy document on the options for
sub-regional co-operation, which is pretty clear. The only area about
which I had some doubt was that although the local authorities
concerned have got to apply to join, non-unitary district councils do
not have to subscribe, and I got the impression that they could be
dragooned in. They may be party to the application, but something could
go ahead even without the application of the simplest of district
councils.
Ms
Winterton: I suspect that that provision was actually
amended in the Lords, and that the original thinking was that if a
county council covered an area, that would do. However, in the Lords it
was pointed out that there could be a problem with that, so an
amendment was made to deal with it.
Mr.
Curry: I merely observe that when their lordships come
from local government, by and large they come almost exclusively from
the upper tier.
Ms
Winterton: Obviously, on this occasion they have been
addressing the problems of the unitary district councils. The Bill sets
out that no local authority will be able to be part of the scheme for
the establishment of an EPB unless it is involved in the preparation of
the scheme for the new body, or consents to being part of it. Also, the
Secretary of State will have to consult every authority that will be
part of the EPB before it can be set
up. The
EPBs are extremely important bodies. I am glad to see there has been an
element of consensus about the fact that they can play a valuable part
in the sub-regional structure, and I hope the Committee will agree to
the clause standing part of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 85
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86Constitution
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): It is a pleasure to see you
in the Chair, Mr. Amess. It has been useful to have a brief
Second Reading-type excursion from my right hon. Friend the Member for
Skipton and Ripon this morning. In a less elevated vein, before we rose
on Tuesday evening, I attempted to take the same kind of tour in
relation to the confusion of the architecture that we now see gradually
revealed in the Bill. I shall not attempt to repeat the Second Reading
observations on the clause, but I want to send a signal to the Minister
about most of the remainder of the clauses in this part of the Bill. As
I observed on Tuesday, they give considerable powers to the Secretary
of State.
For example,
under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to decide
membership, voting powers, executive arrangements and so
forth. I am fascinated by paragraph (f) of subsection (4), which refers
to the
“disapplication
of section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
(duty to allocate seats to political
groups)”. That
suggests either that the paragraph would disapply a duty to ensure
political balance, or vice versa. I would be grateful if the Minister
enlightened us on that
point. In
summary, on most of the clauses—I shall have something more to
say about one particular clause—we wish the Minister to persuade
the Committee that the Secretary of State’s powers will be
exercised responsibly and not in an onerous way. Who knows? The
economic prosperity boards might in due course have the opportunity to
take over more powers and become bottom-up bodies with real power and
authority, rather than pieces of a confusing jigsaw, under what we hope
is the forthcoming Conservative Government.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to see
you back in the Chair, Mr. Amess. As the hon. Member for
Wycombe said, we are effectively discussing
the principles behind EPBs and how they will interact with the other
arrangements. I agree entirely that although those of us on this side
of the Committee have sought to use Divisions to indicate in detail our
disapproval of certain aspects of the Bill, a key principle is at stake
here. Is the case being made successfully for EPBs alongside the other
arrangements we have discussed? I have explained that my party would
prefer regions that make more sense to people, which might make EPBs
unnecessary. Groups of local authorities coming together to form
regions with RDAs that match those boundaries would be a better
process, although as the Minister kindly pointed out, that would take
some
time. With
that in mind, we tabled a series of amendments, which of course were
unselectable, calling for Divisions on individual clauses. Whether EPBs
will make a useful contribution and whether they will cut across the
work of regional bodies remains to be seen, but we look forward to
hearing more from the Minister about that as we move through this part
of the
Bill. The
hon. Member for Wycombe discussed subsection (4)(f). I must
confess that I had not picked up on that point, and I am glad that he
raised it as it is a serious one that deals with an established
practice that is a strength of local government. Of course, my party
would like a slightly different electoral system, such as the one that
they now have in Scotland, to allow local authorities to reflect the
popular vote even more closely. However, even with our present system,
it is important that all political groups and all views have the option
to be represented in bodies formed. I have concerns about
leaders’ boards from that point of view also. We must be careful
in considering the
EPBs. 9.15
am
Ms
Winterton: I will address the issue of the Secretary of
State’s role first. The Opposition document “Control
Shift”, as the hon. Member for Wycombe and the right hon. Member
for Skipton and Ripon said, proposes a similar structure, and it also
says that the Secretary of State would be able to grant it. There are
important reasons for that, because it is about making sure that all
local authorities have been properly involved in drawing up a scheme,
that there is the ability to influence it and, therefore, that they
have in a sense signed up for it—that the structure will work.
That is why there is the ability to refer back to the Secretary of
State, in a sense, for endorsement. It is also clear, as I said before,
that we expect EPBs and combined authorities to be voluntary for local
authorities. It is not about a local authority having to have one; it
is about local authorities coming forward and saying, “We
believe that this would be
beneficial.” On
the point made about subsection (4)(f), political balance provisions
that apply to local authorities will apply to EPBs; that is covered in
schedule 6. However, those provisions do not apply to executives of
local authorities, which are designed to be cabinet-type structures, so
we have similarly provided for EPBs to operate with an executive that
they choose. I hope that that is a helpful clarification and that the
Committee will agree to the
clause. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
87 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 19 June 2009 |