| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
There will be problems in areas where there are lots of elections. London has elections every four years, as do counties, but many unitaries and districts have yearly elections, so there may be a change of leadership every year, especially in marginal authorities. That would mean that leaders’ boards would need to be reconstituted virtually every year. There must be some way of reflecting the political changes every time there are elections, and I hope that that has been taken into account. That is the gist of my amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group: Amendments 169ZA and 169B. The first follows on from points made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I have been concerned for some time that the Government’s concept of strong leadership carries with it weak everyone else. There is a danger that individual councillors who are not leaders may be squeezed out of, above all, information.
My Amendment 169ZA takes us on one stage from that, in that I fear that the leaders’ boards may squeeze out some parties. In the local government world—this is referred to in one of the amendments of the noble
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC306
Amendment 169B continues the theme and would remove the Secretary of State’s role in approving the scheme for setting up the leaders’ boards. We make it perfectly clear that we think that it is a matter for the authorities. I probably need say no more about that.
Baroness Andrews: This is an important group of amendments to which I shall try to do justice. The amendments fall into two main groups. The first concerns the rationale for the creation of the leaders’ boards, their viability, composition and the different roles of different partners. The second concerns the role of the Secretary of State. I shall deal with the amendments in their two groups and in the context of the clause stand part debate raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
The consultation on the SNR made it quite clear that leaders’ boards would be the key body representing the collective views of local government in a region, but the way in which they work and what they will look like will depend on each board. All that we have done is to set up some basic criteria which we expect to see met. They need to be streamlined and manageable to make strategic decisions, but to be representative of local government in the region and made up of leaders with the authority to act on behalf of the region. They are not leaders in the sense that we use for leaders of the council; they can be from the council, acting on behalf of the authority. It will be entirely up to the local authority to decide. That approach has been welcomed by the LGA.
The fall-back power, which allows the Secretary of State to agree the scheme produced in the region, is just that: a fall-back power, reflecting the ultimate responsibility that she has to ensure that leaders’ boards are effective and meet the basic criteria. It is very satisfying that most regions are getting on with establishing leaders’ boards. The chances of the Secretary of State not approving a scheme that has wide support are remote. One leaders’ board is already in place, the famous 4NW. Our latest information is that leaders’ boards will be established in the next two or three months in at least four more regions, which is excellent news. Rather than take noble Lords through the detail, I shall write to them to update them on what progress has been made and in which regions.
In probing this provision, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has to take into account the reality of the fact that leaders’ boards are already in place and in process, so he will not be surprised when I say that I cannot accept Amendment 168C, which would require that they should be optional. I will, however, answer his point about funding. We have already said that we will fund leaders’ boards to the order of £20 million a year
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC307
7.15 pm
I turn now to Amendment 168D, which seeks to remove the phrase “(whether or not incorporated)” from Clause 66(1). In line with our flexible approach, we have left it to the participating local authorities to decide the legal status of their leaders’ board so that it can best meet their requirements. The phrase clarifies that intention. If incorporated, for example, a leaders’ board would have a legal personality and could enter into contracts on its own behalf as well as employ staff. They would otherwise draw on staff employed by the participating authorities in the region.
Amendments 168E, 168G, 178A, 178B and 178D seek to replace “participating” authority with “qualifying” authority when referring to local authorities. Subsection (3) makes it clear that:
“For the purposes of this section, ‘participating authority’ means”,
district and county councils, including unitaries, as well as national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I take the point he made, and I have an additional note from my officials saying that “participating authorities” would make the scheme to establish leaders’ boards, so this must anticipate any question of who qualifies, which will be determined by the scheme drawn up by the local authorities.
Let me remind noble Lords of some of the criteria set out in the SNR document. One is that leaders’ boards should be streamlined, manageable, representative and composed of local authority leaders with sufficient authority to act on behalf of local areas. Amendment 168F could undermine those criteria by allowing leaders’ boards to include members from all local authorities and to allow non-leaders to be appointed as substitutes. The issue is how much detail about the composition of these boards should be included in primary legislation. The boards have to be effective and of a manageable size. In the north-east, it might be possible to include all the authorities, but there are 76 local authorities in the south-east. It is up to the boards how they manage functions. That does not rule out substitutes or even external stakeholders, but boards must be credible and have authority. I am afraid that if we were to accept the amendment, we might get bogged down in having to deal with detailed membership rules. We are aiming for flexibility.
Amendment 172AA also risks burdening leaders with blanket rules to require board members to consult local authorities that are not directly represented. Of course they should be able to do so, but we look to their schemes to see how they will achieve that. Consultation may be the answer. However, there may be other ways to do this.
I have spoken about the ability of boards to determine their own composition and how they work, which covers the provision suggested in Amendment 169ZA
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC308
On the Secretary of State’s powers in Amendments 169 to 170 and 169B, noble Lords have argued that it is not necessary to have the Secretary of State’s approval here because local authorities can be relied on to take a responsible and inclusive approach, and I agree. Therefore, I revert to the arguments that I made previously. The powers here are to be used in the event of a worst-case scenario. They are there as a fallback position, and it would be irresponsible not to allow for such powers. They are particularly relevant in order for everyone to be satisfied that the leaders’ board will be representative of the whole region.
Our final reason for believing that the leaders’ board needs to be formally signed off by the Secretary of State is that it will be a statutory body and a responsible regional authority. It will be in receipt of public funds, and it is only right and proper that it should be formally recognised as such by the Secretary of State. This is not a precedent. The power to approve the leaders’ board is the same as the current power of the Secretary of State to appoint a regional planning body under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Amendment 171 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State, by direction, to withdraw approval for the leaders’ board scheme in a region where it was not operating effectively. We would expect that power to be used extremely exceptionally where the operation of the board was significantly at variance with its approved scheme. I have just made clear the value that the Government place on the scheme, and it would not be consistent for the Secretary of State to approve it and then not to be able to ensure that it was subsequently adhered to.
Finally, I turn to Clauses 72 and 79. Clause 72 concerns what happens when the responsible regional authorities have prepared and published a draft revision of the regional strategy and submitted it to the Secretary of State. Amendment 180A to Clause 72 seeks to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any revisions and places this duty with the responsible regional authorities. I have just explained the importance of the Secretary of State’s approval role, and this applies equally to the publication of the document, which acts as the final sign-off.
None of these powers is new. A power for direction for regional development agencies already exists in Section 7(2) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. In addition, as I said, there is a power of direction in relation to the revision of strategy in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
I have gone through that at a fair place, for which I apologise. However, I am anxious to address the
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC309
Lord Greaves: I am going to withdraw Amendment 168C, although I should like to be satisfied that leaders’ boards will be representative of the whole region. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by the whole region. You could put the region into big areas and say that there was someone from there and therefore the boards were representative, but they will not really be representative. There will be a lot of councils. Most people will never have heard of the boards and will have no idea what is going on in their name until they discover what decisions they make.
I still do not understand why leaders’ boards need to be incorporated. 4NW has a staff structure chart on the internet and appears to employ 37 people. I am not sure how that works, as I am certain that it is not incorporated. I assume that they are the people who previously worked for the regional assembly, but I ask who employed them because that was not an incorporated body. Therefore, I do not know how it works, but perhaps someone can find out.
We will read with great care what the Minister said and see whether we want to bring back some of these issues. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 168C.
Amendments 168D to 169ZA not moved.
Amendment 169A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendments 169B to 172 not moved.
Amendment 172A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
172AB: Clause 66, page 45, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 22) applies to meetings of the Leaders’ Board as if it were a committee of a local authority.”
Lord Greaves: The second amendment in this group is Amendment 173B. It is in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and is much better than mine, so I shall let her take the lead.
Baroness Hamwee: As my noble friend said, Amendment 173B is grouped with Amendment 172AB. He said that he would say what he said, even though he did not know when we would reach it. I am grateful for his compliments, but I fully expect to hear from the Government that my amendment is not as full as it should be if I am to achieve what I am obviously setting out to achieve, because it should have referred to Schedule 12A as well as to Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.
The objective of this not-quite-correct amendment is to require regional development agencies, leaders’ boards, and the two of them acting jointly, which is
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC310
I feel particularly strongly about this, having gone through experiences in London where the London Development Agency, which is a regional development agency, designed its agendas—this is my interpretation, having looked at how they were constructed—in such a way that all the confidential business happened at the start of the meeting. The meetings took place at 8 am because of the large number of business people who were contributing to the work of the LDA, and the non-confidential business was taken at the end. My guess was that, by that point, a number of main players would have gone on to their day jobs. I am not seeking to rubbish its contribution for a moment, but I do seek to argue that that is not the way to run public authorities.
What applies to local authorities should apply to leaders’ boards, which I hope is completely uncontentious. Their business will be of major importance to their areas, and the same goes for responsible regional authorities: the RDAs and the leaders’ boards acting jointly. The situation is a little better in London, but we started in 2000 with a number of members of the London Assembly sitting outside an LDA meeting to make the point that they were not admitted. That is absolutely wrong, but it creates quite a vivid picture, which I would not like to be replicated in the future. I would like all these bodies to be subject to the perfectly proper rules that local councillors have lived with for years.
7.30 pm
Baroness Andrews: I know how strongly the noble Baroness feels about these amendments, and based on her experience, I understand more. Amendment 172AB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would insert:
“Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 ... applies to meetings of the Leaders’ Boards as if it were a committee of a local authority”.
That would mean that all such meetings must be open to the public.
Amendment 173B is further reaching in its effect in two important respects. It refers to all the provisions of Part VA of the 1972 Act rather than to Section 100. As a consequence not only all meetings would need to be public but all papers, reports and minutes, as well as details relating to individual members of the board. It applies not only to leaders’ boards but to RDAs and responsible regional authorities.
It is important to recognise that we are not trying to create additional bureaucracy with leaders’ boards. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has been keen to ensure that we know his feelings on that. It is about
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC311
Because this is a new process, the leaders’ boards will work in different ways. They will be tasked specifically with hard work, much of which will be about analysis and negotiation with the RDAs on priorities. This is a very different situation and it would not be appropriate to apply the provisions of the 1972 Act to the leaders’ boards or the RDAs. Leaders’ boards will be established through an open process. A scheme will be made to establish them and they will be consulted on. While we do not intend to prescribe how that consultation will be done, the Secretary of State will consider whether it has been consistent with the Cabinet Office code. I expect them to conduct their business openly.
Regional assemblies generally meet in public. They include information of past and future meetings and papers and minutes on their websites. Leaders’ boards will also act transparently. The 4NW—the famous one—is already following similar procedures for public access to information to the former north-west regional assembly. The nature and detail of each of the boards’ constitution and governance will be for the participating local authorities to decide. That may vary between regions. Therefore, we do not feel that it would be right to prescribe detailed arrangements. Nevertheless, local authorities and their leaders will be subject to Part VA of the 1972 Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The activities of the leaders’ boards and members of the participating authorities will be subject to the relevant provisions.
RDAs are committed to openness and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They follow the model publication scheme produced for the information commissioner. Yorkshire Forward, for example, publishes the agenda for each board meeting as well as board
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC312
In summary, my argument is that they are different animals and will work in different ways. While I accept the noble Baroness’s concern, rather than imposing a detailed and possibly inappropriate process on all the responsibilities, we want to ensure that the process is inclusive and transparent. We have done that in the ways I have suggested. That approach has worked well in the past in involving communities. If we went further, I believe that we would end up with more bureaucracy. We would have inflexibility and not necessarily greater transparency.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister used the phrases, “open, inclusive and appropriate” and “inclusive and transparent” but I cannot make the conceptual leap from what she said to the resistance to this amendment. Admitting the public and ensuring that papers are open to them becomes bureaucratic when one has to put in a lot of Freedom of Information Act requests. They should be the last not the first resort. They are new arrangements, so to my mind we should get them right from the beginning.
I will have to read what the noble Baroness said about leaders’ boards to understand what happens when a leaders’ board which applies these rules and an RDA which does not do so join together as a responsible regional authority. That would be a separate entity. However, I feel an amendment on Report coming on.
Lord Greaves: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 67 : Responsible regional authorities
Lord Patel of Bradford: This may a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Committee adjourned at 7.36 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |