Ms
Winterton: Yes it does.
Mr.
Lilley: Where—in clause
118(2)?
Ms
Winterton: In clause
118(2)(a).
Mr.
Lilley: No, clause 118(2)(a) says, “covers an
area”. We could make an agreement about Essex or
Hertfordshire—or something like that, but that is the area that
we cover—and we could set targets, although they would not apply
unless the person to whom they should apply agreed, as a later clause
says. The Bill should spell out the sort of people between whom such
agreements should be made. The drafting is
sloppy. Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): It might
help if I provide the Committee with a little background to the
evolution of the local area agreement concept, which preceded
multi-area agreements and had a similar objective. They evolved in
discussions between the Local Government Association and the Department
for Communities and Local Government, which then had a different
name. The
agreements were concerned with providing maximum flexibility to local
authorities and their local partners in developing targets for
improving people’s living standards, whether in economic,
environmental or social well-being terms. The obvious weakness of that
mode, which
nevertheless was welcomed by all concerned, was that it applied only to
one area, and the whole purpose of multi-area agreements is to apply
the same flexibility to a wider area, thus embracing a number of
different authorities. On Second
Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, in my borough of Greenwich,
we are in discussion with the four other neighbouring Olympic
authorities to reach a multi-area agreement with the objective of
delivering—for the people of Greenwich, Newham, Tower Hamlets,
Waltham Forest and Hackney—improved outputs in relation to some
of the great priorities facing those areas. In particular, it would
improve employment prospects, tackle problems of joblessness and
improve housing conditions. It would also bring improvements to the
public
realm. Those
are admirable objectives, but they embrace a huge number of possible
options and partners. The negotiations on the local area
agreement—or multi-area agreement, in the case of the five
Olympic boroughs—are progressing, but the process is not easy;
it is complex and involves many potential players. That might explain
why it is not possible to be too prescriptive in legislation about the
precise nature of the agreements and partners. That could prove
restrictive.
Much of the
debate in Committee has been about how far local government should
enjoy greater flexibility and freedom to develop objectives that local
authorities think appropriate, and the multi-area agreement concept
will make a major contribution to that. I would therefore counsel the
right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden not to seek too tight a
definition. That might work against the objective of allowing
flexibility for local authorities and their partners to evolve
appropriate multi-area agreements.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 118
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
119Local
authorities
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 158, in
clause 119, page 74, line 16, leave
out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert ‘parish
councils’. The
first part of the amendment would delete the reference to economic
prosperity boards, which is in line with other amendments that we
tabled, but they were not selected. As we have discussed already, we
wanted to delete the whole concept from the Bill, but we seem to have
moved on and acknowledged that EPBs might have a role to offer, so we
will not seek to push the amendment to a
vote. 9.45
am The
amendment would also insert “parish councils” into the
clause, although the Minister might feel that this is not the
appropriate clause—perhaps they could be dealt with under
partner authorities. Nevertheless, we have debated the evolving nature
of parish councils, particularly in areas that now have unitary
councils. That is a situation with which I am now more familiar. Larger
parish councils in places such as Wiltshire and
Shropshire are, in consultation with those authorities, considering
taking on further roles and perhaps professionalising what they have
done hitherto. As they have a developing role, I should like to see
somewhere in this concept of multi-area agreements provision for parish
councils to be able to contribute. Many parish
councils may not yet be ready for such a concept, but with the equality
status process moving forward, the aspirations of parish
councils—particularly the larger ones—are changing. The
right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was right to point out that for
many smaller parish councils, such a suggestion will not be
appropriate.
Julia
Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point,
especially given the experiences of preparing for local government
reorganisation in Cornwall, where it is very difficult for the parish
councils to have an input even though they may be taking on a greater
role. Even in the case of smaller parish councils, is it not the case
that if they are considering working together it may be appropriate for
them to be considered? I am talking about another layer of multi-area
agreement.
Dan
Rogerson: Multi-parish
agreement.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Indeed. There could be some benefit for them
from working with other
authorities.
Dan
Rogerson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure
that that is the process. It may be that some of that is formalised and
we will see smaller parish councils coming together to form larger
parish councils. Such a process is under way in some areas. That can
happen in consultation with the local authority and does not need the
Secretary of State’s involvement. That is an issue that has been
devolved, and that we
welcome. We
are talking about parish councils, which, two reorganisations ago, were
urban districts or boroughs and were building housing and carrying out
all sorts of functions. There is a desire to be flexible and consider
delivering services at the most appropriate local level. What I want
from the Minister is some guidance about how she intends to involve
parish councils in this process—whether it will be listed under
local authorities under clause 119 or under partner authorities next
time. I have a feeling that partner authorities does not quite cover
it, because they tend to be other forms of bodies rather than elected
organisations. Mr.
Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I wonder whether the
hon. Gentleman sees any implication for the precepting process in his
proposal for the effective amalgamation of parish councils in
multi-area
agreements?
Dan
Rogerson: I served in a borough council that was
part-parished and part-unparished, and there was always conflict. The
parished areas felt that some services were not being provided for them
directly, and they would effectively say, “Well, you can put it
on the precept, can’t you?” Such an attitude would be a
concern. None the less, it would be a shame if there were no method for
the parish councils to be involved in the process. As I said, this is a
probing amendment, and I want some thoughts from the Government about
how these significant local bodies can be
involved.
Ms
Winterton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that parish
councils play an extremely important role in supporting their local
communities. That is why in December we extended the well-being power
to certain parish and town councils. The real problem is that there is
a large number of parish councils—more than 8,000—and it
is not appropriate to add them to the list of MAAs. It would inevitably
make the process much more complicated. None the less, I want to
reassure the hon. Gentleman that in preparing a draft MAA, the
responsible authority has to consult such other persons as it considers
appropriate. Therefore, if it was appropriate within an area to consult
a parish council, then we would expect the local authorities to do
so.
Dan
Rogerson: I am slightly disappointed by that response. I
accept that it would be inappropriate for all 8,000 parishes—it
is a growing number, because parishes are being formed in urban
areas—automatically to be involved in multi-area agreements. The
whole point of multi-area agreements, as the right hon. Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich said, is their flexibility. If we are seeking a
process that allows involvement for different bodies, as appropriate, I
think that it is a shame that there is no flexibility. For example, in
my area, Newquay town council covers an area containing about 20,000
people.
Mr.
Curry: I do not know whether it is the case in the hon.
Gentleman’s part of the world, but in my part of the world a
significant number of the elected members of the bigger parish councils
also sit on the district council or even the county
council.
Dan
Rogerson: That is sometimes the case, but it is not
universal; it is perhaps an accident, happy or otherwise. If we are
looking to allow flexibility, we could not necessarily count on that,
but the different bodies have different roles. If people are elected to
two authorities they must be careful to deal with the issues
appropriate to each authority.
I saying not
that all parish councils must be involved, but that if they want to be
involved and if the other partners in that multi-area agreement think
it appropriate, there is a facility for them to become involved. They
could take a more direct role, not simply being consultees but
delivering services or providing facilities for services to be
delivered, as many town parish councils have significant property
available to them.
I would
welcome it if the Minister were prepared to consider the matter again.
It would be useful to know whether the Government were tempted. If not,
it will send the message to parish councils that once again they are
not seen as being sufficiently involved. That would be a shame, as
their role is developing.
Ms
Winterton: The Liberal Democrats believe that the
provision is too prescriptive and that we are telling everybody what to
do, but in this instance we are saying that is it up to the responsible
authorities to use their judgment and to allow consultation. For the
reasons that I gave earlier, I believe that we have the balance
right.
Dan
Rogerson: The Minister is seeking to cloud the issue by
talking about being prescriptive. I have said that the amendment would
not compel anyone to be involved, but merely allow them to become
involved in
future. It is not appropriate to press the matter to a Division, but we
may return to the question at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
120Partner
authorities
Julia
Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 159, in
clause 120, page 75, line 18, leave
out from first ‘state’ to end of line
28.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 160, in
clause 120, page 75, line 31, leave
out from ‘nature’ to end of line
38.
Julia
Goldsworthy: We have had an interesting discussion about
what constitutes a local authority. We now move on to discuss what
constitutes a partner authority. The amendments, in my name and that of
my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, relate to the role of the
Secretary of State as a partner authority under subsection (4)(j), and
the Secretary of State’s ability to add or remove organisations
that may constitute a partner authority under subsection (5). The
amendments seek to do two things.
Subsection
(4) specifies a number of persons or organisations that are defined as
partner authorities under subsection (1), but none of those listed
in subsection (4) are directly democratically accountable
except the Secretary of State. Subsection (1)(a) clearly states that a
partner authority is
“any
person...where the whole or any part of the area for which the
person acts or is established coincides with or falls within that
area”. However,
subsection (4)(j) specifies only limited areas in which the Secretary
of State is considered to be a partner authority in relation to
multi-area agreements.
Our argument
is that if the Secretary of State is to be a partner authority, he or
she should be a partner authority in other respects, not only in those
limited ones. I realise that it is not the Secretary of State in
person, but anyone who represents that office. It would be
helpful if the Minister were to clarify the matter, but if the
Secretary of State is to be a partner authority it should not be
confined or limited as set out in subsection
(4). In
subsection (5), we can see that the list in the previous subsection
might not be exhaustive, and that there might be some justification for
extending it. We are concerned that subsection (5) gives the Secretary
of State the power to include or exclude whoever he or she wants,
whenever he or she wants. Although it might be appropriate to add
bodies, we would not want the Secretary of State to be able to remove
bodies just as easily. The two amendments, therefore, would confine and
restrict the significant power of the Secretary of State. There is a
more level playing field if everyone has equal roles and
responsibilities in working together in a multi-area
agreement.
Ms
Winterton: Clause 120 lists the partner authorities for
the purposes of MAAs with duties. That list is the same as the list of
partner authorities for local area agreements set out in the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Heath Act 2007. If, as has been
requested by local government, we are going to put MAAs on a similar
statutory footing to LAAs, it is obviously appropriate that the lists
of partners are consistent. Amendment 159 would remove
reference to the functions of the Secretary of State that are carried
out by Jobcentre Plus, the Highways Agency and the probation service.
That would have the effect of making the Secretary of State a partner
authority for all purposes. I think that that relates to some previous
amendments, as perhaps the hon. Lady has said, which were tabled out of
a concern about the statutory role of the Secretary of State in the
approval of MAAs. There is, therefore, a problem with the
amendment. Amendment
160 would prevent the Secretary of State from removing bodies from the
list of partner authorities. The problem with that is that it would
prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to take account of
changes in the machinery of government, and from keeping the list up to
date. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the
amendments.
| 
