| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
That is one area where a joint delegation to Cornwall and the Council of the Isles of Scilly would be positive, and, as I understand it, enabled by the amendment. As my noble friend Lady Maddock said, perhaps this is an area where we can, at last, start to get some democracy, some accountability and some answers to communities and people through a democratic method about how those budgets are spent.
I am not totally critical of the RDAs, but there are issues, one of which is democratic accountability. By bringing funds that relate to specific local government areas down to those areas, that has greatly improved. The work and budgets of the RDAs will be much enhanced by that legitimacy. In some of those programmes, particularly European ones, such delegation would be particularly appropriate.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord introduced the amendment, because I understand that he wants to get things done. I shall address the specific instance that he raised in the context of my general argument. I am very grateful to my noble friend for joining the debate and raising what I thought were very pertinent questions.
The amendment provides for each RDA to delegate any of its functions to a local authority or group of local authorities in the region. It is an expanded version of a similar amendment tabled in Committee. I do not think that it comes as any surprise when I say that were it to be carried, it would create major and, I think, unforeseen contradictions and difficulties. For that reason, I hope that noble Lords will think very hard before supporting it.
The most important point I want to reiterate is that this part is based on one fundamental principle: joint working between equal partners demonstrated across
1 Apr 2009 : Column 1166
The Government's response to the consultation on the SNR proposed that approach to enable local authorities to take on a large degree of responsibility for delivery of the programmes and projects in their area, but it is also right that the RDAs should retain final accountability for the funds that pass through them. First, I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that that would help to ensure that the money is strongly focused on economic development that is of strategic value to region as a whole and is therefore good value for the money in relation to what the RDAs are about.
Secondly, we need at this time to be swift and innovative to respond to changing and challenging situations. It is important that the RDAs can maintain flexibility in their budgets at this time. The key point is that the RDAs and local authorities will now jointly agree, as a result of this new opportunity, what programmes of intervention will be undertaken in particular areas. Any funding from RDAs to local authorities in any circumstances will have to follow the usual rules that apply to the RDAs. They will have to be used within the same overall financial framework that applies to RDAs. RDAs and local authorities will now jointly agree how projects within the programme will be appraised, monitored and evaluated. If appraisal systems are aligned, all parties work together. The requirements for the RDAs to ensure that accountability considerations are met should not be onerous. The virtues of investment-led planning are to focus on what will work, which should commend itself to the noble Lord, with flexibility but not bureaucracy.
We have been working with colleagues from the LGA, local authorities and RDAs to develop guidance for joint investment planning. The principle that we are following is that it should be light-touch and partnership-based. The guidance will make it clear that Ministers want RDAs to allow projects and programmes to be planned and delivered through local authorities and other sub-regional partnerships: whatever, frankly, will be most effective. It will also enable RDAs to ensure that interventions across different areas are consistent with the agreed regional strategy and its priorities and reflect different economic scenarios. That is, as I say, very important.
As I said in Committee, these amendments are unnecessary for achieving what we all want and what was at the heart of the SNR proposals—interventions at the right level that will align with and strengthen effective partnerships.
1 Apr 2009 : Column 1167
The noble Lord described the situation in Jaywick; he had warned me a little that he would but not sufficiently. We did some rapid research in the extended interval before the debate, and I am very grateful to my officials for being very efficient and speedy. I understand that the specific project is part of the larger Haven Gateway programme, which forms part of the regional funding advice submitted by EEDA and the regional assembly for government consideration, so it appears that this work is already considered to be a priority.
All of what the noble Lord wants can be accomplished under existing powers. He has asked how the investment planning arrangements could apply to a specific local project, but if it has been agreed as a priority for the region, funding should be made available under the investment planning process that I have described. Where this comes from the RDA’s budget, the RDA agrees the delivery arrangements and releases the money on that basis. The RDA retains ultimate accountability for the expenditure, but it would also retain it if they had the power to delegate which the noble Lord seeks in his amendment. That would not change.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, will the Minister clarify whether the RDA could give the money to the joint committee as it is a regional priority—everyone has agreed that—so that it can get on with the project rather than having two lots of management people managing the project? Is that what she is saying?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is certainly my understanding. I was going to suggest to the noble Lord that we facilitate a meeting between him and some relevant officials from the joint departments, so that he can discuss some of these issues with them. He will appreciate that it is quite difficult to make a very precise judgment, but that is certainly my understanding. I obviously cannot make any commitments about particular projects, but I am happy to ensure that there is such a meeting.
The amendment has very serious implications, I am afraid. First—my noble friend referred to this—it would allow any RDA function, even something that is manifestly regional, to be delegated to a local authority or group of authorities. Perversely, there could easily be functions that actually undermined the principles of the regional joint working arrangements or even contradicted them. There is also no clear link between the activities that would be delegated and the regional strategy, which is the linchpin of everything that we are trying to do. Delegation was never intended to be considered separately from the regional strategy and the investment planning process that we have described.
Secondly, the amendment would be a recipe for chaos. Proposed new subsection (5) would place a requirement on the RDAs to propose suitable delegations within three months of this proposed new clause coming into force. However, it is not clear to whom the proposals would be made, and there is no apparent requirement for the RDA to delegate functions even if it makes proposals. As I have said, we also have an issue with the definition of the functions themselves.
1 Apr 2009 : Column 1168
Thirdly—I find this particularly puzzling, given the resistance of the party opposite to any powers of the Secretary of State—proposed new subsection (6) would give the Secretary of State the power to direct an RDA to make such delegations as may be determined. That would give the Secretary of State more powers over the RDAs, and it would undermine the principle of joint decisions and joint working.
While we are on the subject of uncontained powers, I have concerns about proposed new subsection (9), which seems designed to provide that existing legislation can be modified in any way necessary to give effect to the new power. These are very wide powers, which are unprecedented. They certainly would have been challenged by noble Lords opposite should I have proposed them. I am surprised to see that there is also a wish for the joint working between the RDAs and local authorities to be subject to the RDA’s view of the capacity of the local authorities concerned. Under this, the RDAs would be trying to put in place new assessments. I had been under the impression that noble Lords opposite favoured dispensing with inspections of councils.
Finally, there is another contradiction in terms of the way in which the law should be expected to work. Amendment 167, which would apply to Schedule 5, would allow functions that are delegated by RDAs to local authorities to be exercised by the local authorities even if this means that they operate in a way that is not lawful for the RDAs themselves. Again, I think that there is a genuine confusion.
I have enormous respect for the noble Lord opposite, for his intentions and his experience. I hope, certainly in relation to the fatal flaws of the amendment, that he will not press it to a Division this evening.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer and noble Lords on this side of the House for their support. I accept that this is not a perfect amendment. Rather than debating the amendment, we are debating the principle of how the money that the RDAs have can be spent to best effect and the principle that there should be democratic accountability.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, I do not know how his RDA works, but the RDA for the eastern region tries to allocate the money reasonably fairly among the constituent authorities—the counties—in that region. Essex would therefore get its share. We are talking about how that money would be spent in Essex. The case that I have described—I hate to keep going back to it—is already a regional priority.
There needs to be further clarity. The noble Baroness has suggested a meeting specifically on this issue but there is also a general principle about whether local authorities will work with RDAs generally to spend the limited sums they have to spend. I shall not press the amendment to a vote now although I know that I have quite a lot of support. However, I hope that there will be some clarity between now and Third Reading. It is a major issue. I do not want to argue with the Government. I want to get value for money out of the limited sums available and involve the local people who know best how that money should be spent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
1 Apr 2009 : Column 1169
Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw the amendment, so it was not granted.
9.52 pm
Addington, L.
Barker, B.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Cathcart, E.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Dykes, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanningfield, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Mawson, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
Palmer, L.
Razzall, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L. [Teller]
Ullswater, V.
Verma, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Berkeley, L.
Bilston, L.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Crawley, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
1 Apr 2009 : Column 1170
Dixon, L.
Drayson, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, .
Ford, B.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Joffe, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Maxton, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Quin, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Soley, L.
Thornton, B.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Wilkins, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
10.02 pm
Clause 80 : Sustainable development
Schedule 5 : Regional strategy: amendments
Amendments 167 and 168 not moved.
Consideration on Report adjourned.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |