Julia
Goldsworthy: Although I do not intend to press the
amendments, I am not entirely sure whether the Minister has
answered all the questions that the amendments raise. She seems
perfectly happy for the responsibilities of all the other authorities
listed in subsection (4) to be covered by the definition in
subsection
(1): “the
whole or any part of the area for which the person acts or is
established coincides with or falls within that
area”. If
that definition of the extent of responsibilities is good enough for
every other body listed in subsection (4), why is it not
good enough for the Secretary of State? Why is it not clear enough? I
do not think that the Minister has answered that
question. The
issue of the ability to amend the list goes back to the
Minister’s assumption that the Government will always act in the
best interests. Although I can, of course, envisage circumstances in
which bodies are disbanded or new ones are created and the list needs
to be amended, subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to not only
remove authorities that no longer exist but to remove authorities that
it might not be convenient or expedient to have on the list. I wonder
why the list cannot simply be amended by regulation, so that there is
an opportunity for scrutiny of what is on the list, rather than by
order of the Secretary of State. I remain concerned about those two
issues, but given what we have to get through today it might take too
much time to press the
amendments. 10
am
Ms
Winterton: To give one final reassurance, I must say that
the power to remove bodies from the list is exercisable by order. It is
subject to parliamentary control and must follow consultation. It
cannot be used lightly, without coming back to
Parliament.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Lilley: The Committee will know that my worries come from
the actions of a group of authorities. They could be operating under a
multi-area agreement, and have predatory intentions outside their area
that will affect another local authority. My two concerns might be
relevant to the clause, but they arise from a lack of clarity under
clause 118, which states that a multi-area
agreement “specifies
improvement targets for that
area.” However,
if the authorities are achieving improvements in, say, Luton, by
building houses in north Hertfordshire, what happens then? Can the
Minister, under the clause, require them to include north Herts in the
multi-area agreement so that the local authority that is being impinged
upon in the pursuit of a target, which does not relate to it but is the
housing target for Luton and south Bedfordshire, will be included in
the multi-area agreement?
In the rather
sinister goings on between Luton and south Bedfordshire to specify an
area for building in north Herts, a meeting took place involving Luton
council, South Bedfordshire council, the Minister’s
Department—before she was in office—and a private
developer. A development agency can be a party to a multi-area
agreement, but will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear beyond
peradventure that a private developer cannot be part of the agreement
or party to an authority or document seeking to improve Luton by
building in Hertfordshire? All hon. Members can think of parallel
circumstances that might affect their constituencies, and I should be
grateful if the Minister responded to that
point.
Ms
Winterton: Private developers would not be part of a
multi-area agreement; which authorities can be part is set out clearly.
The whole concept of a multi-area agreement is that different
authorities sign up and agree to the targets. Local authorities have
said to us that they want a similar process to local area agreements
because that would mean a stronger statutory basis for operating the
multi-area
agreement.
Mr.
Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister, who is endeavouring
to be helpful and positive. Clause 118
states: “specifies
improvement targets for that
area”, rather
than “in” that area. Given that the courts take into
account what Ministers say, will she make it clear that this is meant
to apply to targets for and in the area of the local
authorities—not just for an area—but achieved by actions
taking place outside the
area?
Ms
Winterton: I would be extremely surprised if the targets
not owned by local authorities in an area could somehow apply outside
an area. I suspect that the drafting was carried out on legal
advice.
Mr.
Raynsford: I rise merely to raise a speculative point that
will create an almost impossible difficulty for the right hon. Member
for Hitchin and Harpenden. If the multi-area agreement was to produce a
target for improving air quality, it would be completely impossible to
define the way to achieve that target so that it related only to the
area of the authorities making the agreement, because the very nature
of the target would have wider
implications. That is why it is not wise for us to be unduly
prescriptive in seeking to define the role of a multi-area agreement. I
hear exactly the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Multi-area
agreements will not necessarily be concerned solely with housing. They
could be concerned with a number of other provisions, such as air
quality, for which there would be an obvious intellectual difficulty in
coming up with the formulation that he is pressing
towards.
Ms
Winterton: On the north Herts scenario, I re-emphasise
that north Herts would agree to a target only if it was happy with it.
The target that it signs up to must apply to its functions; and it is
not bound to any target if it does not sign up for it. I hope that that
is
helpful.
Mr.
Lilley: In fact, it undoes some of the good that the
Minister was doing earlier. The point is not that north Herts has
signed up to the Luton housing target—a target imposed on Luton
and south Beds by central Government. They are trying to fulfil their
target, for their area, by building outside the area. The right hon.
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich supposed that that could be a problem
in respect of other functions. What if Greenwich were to try to improve
the quality of air in Greenwich—in my experience, of a high
calibre already—by building a waste-disposal plant in someone
else’s constituency, so that all the fumes from the waste
processes in Greenwich were disseminated in Bromley, say? Would that be
within the powers established by the Bill for a multi-area agreement,
in a case where Bromley is not part of that
agreement? Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
121Proposal
for multi-area
agreement
Julia
Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 161, in
clause 121, page 76, line 10, leave
out from ‘may’ to end of line 12 and insert
‘notify the Secretary of State of their intention to
establish a multi-area
agreement.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 162, in clause 121, page 76,
line 19, leave out ‘request’ and insert
‘notification’. Amendment
163, in
clause 121, page 76, line 20, leave
out ‘request’ and insert
‘notification’. Amendment
164, in
clause 121, page 76, line 24, leave
out ‘request’ and insert
‘notification’. Amendment
165, in
clause 122, page 76, line 27, leave
out subsection
(1). Amendment
166, in
clause 122, page 76, line 36, leave
out subsection
(4). Amendment
92, in
clause 123, page 77, line 2, leave
out from ‘agreement’ to ‘the’ in line
3. Amendment
93, in
clause 124, page 77, line 26, leave
out ‘Secretary of State approves’ and insert
‘local authorities and partner authorities
approve’. Amendment
94, in
clause 124, page 77, line 28, leave
out subsection
(3). Amendment
95, in
clause 124, page 77, line 31, leave
out subsection (4).
Amendment 96,
in
clause 125, page 77, line 35, leave
out subsection
(1). Amendment
97, in
clause 129, page 79, line 12, leave
out paragraph
(b).
Julia
Goldsworthy: Although the amendments have been grouped
with clause 121, they relate right the way through clauses 121 to 129.
Considering them together is logical, because the next part of the Bill
seeks to set out the mechanics of how multi-area agreements work: how
they are initiated, how the proposals move forward, and how they are
prepared, approved, submitted and
revised. In
the Minister’s earlier remarks on multi-area agreements, she
spoke of local authorities’ demand that multi-area agreements be
put on a statutory footing. However, what concerns we Liberal Democrats
is not only that almost every stage of the progress of multi-area
agreements—their initiation, proposal, preparation, approval,
revision and submission—is dependent on the Secretary of
State’s approval, but that every stage could be initiated by
direction of the Secretary of the State. It is difficult for the
process to be purely bottom-up if, at every stage, the Secretary of
State can direct a multi-area agreement to be revised, initiated or
proposed. That concerns us greatly, because it could undermine what,
according to the Minister, multi-area agreements are there to achieve,
which is to allow local authorities to work together. They are not
there to allow groups of local authorities to work together under the
direction of the Secretary of
State. Our
proposals would allow local authorities to notify the Secretary of
State of their intention to put forward a multi-area agreement, rather
saying to the Secretary of State that they would like to do so. The
amendments put all the power firmly in the hands of the local
authorities that will be delivering the multi-area agreements, rather
than in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is the principle we
are seeking to establish. We are trying to establish a clear, bottom-up
process, rather than the top-down one that we fear is being perpetuated
through these
clauses.
Mr.
Curry: I am afraid that I am going to start to sound like
an old
Stalinist—
The
Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Sarah McCarthy-Fry):
Never!
Mr.
Curry: Perhaps I used to be a young
Stalinist. In
terms of aspiration, what the Liberal Democrats are doing is
remarkable. In terms of practicality, I do not think a great deal of
it. Frankly, multi-area agreements are often brokered by Government
offices, which play a huge part in their development. The powers of the
Secretary of State often give a sort of back-stop to the agreements for
local authorities. I suspect that local authorities would not welcome a
provision that cut them loose so dramatically from the Secretary of
State, not least because he is a participator in multi-area agreements.
I admire the optimism behind the proposals, but in the real world local
authorities are not unhappy with such tutelage, and in many respects
need it. The
Secretary of State and his powers are part of multi-area agreements.
Obviously, those agreements that are going to have a statutory
power—multi-area agreements with attitude—need the
Secretary of State to be welded into this process. As always, the key
is how the Secretary of State exercises the
powers. The
history of multi-area agreements is not bad. A series of them have been
signed in south Yorkshire and in Lancashire, for example. The
representations I have received show that people are happy with the
process and are quite optimistic. As I said, given that there are so
many participants—including a significant number who are not
directly democratically accountable—the big issue is how the
citizen can find a way in and feel that their voice is being heard in
the extraordinarily complex landscape we are
developing.
Mr.
Raynsford: I cannot but observe that the right hon.
Gentleman has said something with which I wholly concur. The hon.
Member for Wycombe may wish to recall our debate last week, in which I
was categorised not quite as a Stalinist, but as someone who advocates
a little helpful hand on the tiller from Government to achieve results
that local authorities might not achieve by themselves. I wholly concur
with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, in which he advocated
a little helpful hand on the tiller from central Government to assist
local authorities. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe will reflect
that, far from there being a major divide on this issue, the right hon.
Gentleman’s view is almost entirely in agreement with
mine.
Ms
Winterton: Let me say just two things. The points made by
my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the
right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon are exactly
right. I
confirm that the Secretary of State’s power of direction is just
a formal mechanism that acts as a trigger for the duty for local
authorities and partner authorities to co-operate in determining the
improvement targets to be set out in the draft agreement. The Secretary
of State can issue the direction only if it is requested by the local
authorities for the proposed area. The process is still voluntary at
its inception. Local authorities do not have to go down the route of an
MAA with duties if they do not want to. They can still choose a
non-statutory MAA as an alternative. The process is entirely a response
to local authorities’ wish to have this power. As I said, it is
necessary to have a mechanism that involves the Secretary of State to
trigger to the duties. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will
withdraw the
amendment. 10.15
am
Julia
Goldsworthy: The Minister has just said that the Secretary
of State’s direction can come only following a request from
local authorities, but the powers in these clauses presumably also
allow the Secretary of State not to make a direction following a
request. The Secretary of State says that the process is nothing but a
formality and that these are the words that we need to ensure that what
local authorities want will happen, but that formality perhaps gives an
important and clear statement of who is in control.
We had some
interesting contributions from what may described as the worshipful
company of previous Local Government Ministers. That provides an
interesting
insight into what we have not had in the debate—a contribution by
former councillors. What we are seeing is the perspective of those who
have been Ministers—they may also have been
councillors—and who have signed the directions. The Minister
says that the process is a formality, but the amendments would say that
the Secretary of State must be involved only on an equal footing.
However, the powers that are being reserved are not equal, and there is
ultimately a lot in the gift of the Secretary of State.
The fact that
the hon. Member for Wycombe did not speak perhaps implies that, despite
the language in “Control Shift”, his sympathies lie more
with the contribution made by the former Minister. However,
we are still very much “control-alt-delete”,
rather than “Control Shift”. For that reason,
I will press amendment
161. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
| 
