Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2009.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Colleagues, to be frank, when we gathered at 9 o’clock—given that everyone made a great effort to be here despite the transport disruption—I had hoped that we could have started proceedings at that time. However, I have been advised that I would have had no power to do so. An uncorrected error in the printed version of the resolution is responsible for the delay of our start. The Clerk, who is a good chap, has apologised for the error and inconvenience caused to colleagues. I say to the Government Whip, as we are now left with just 55 minutes, that perhaps we might make some sort of progress.

Clause 23

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess, on this my first outing on the Bill. I look forward to considering the clauses that fall under my remit.

Before we finished on Tuesday, the hon. Members for Wycombe and for Falmouth and Camborne raised questions about the clause and asked for an explanation of why it is in the Bill.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess, would the Minister mind moving a couple of seats to her right, because the light is behind her and it would be much more pleasant to see her face than to see a black blur.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Again, this is an unusual start to proceedings, but the Clerk has advised me that we are going to adjust the blinds.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Much as I should love the right hon. Gentleman to see my face and not a black blur, I am afraid I need the additional table here for all my bits of paper. I am sure we will sort something out with the blinds.

To begin, I will explain the logic behind what we want to achieve with the clause—[Interruption]—if anyone is listening. In 2007, we introduced the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, under which best value authorities were given a duty to involve. That came into force from April this year. There has been a positive response to that, and local authorities welcomed the duty to involve. Many already do so as part of their usual duties, and are keen to increase the level of involvement as a result.

The duty to involve is not stand-alone legislation. On considering how to take forward community empowerment, we took the new local performance framework that we were introducing as our starting point. It became increasingly obvious that to be most effective, the duty ought also to apply to partner organisations that are under a duty to co-operate with councils to agree local performance targets—namely, local area agreements. The proposal was discussed and agreed with the relevant partner organisations; we subsequently announced, in the “Communities in control” White Paper, our intention to extend the duty to involve to those organisations.

We will also add the new Homes and Communities Agency to ensure that principles of involvement apply to it. Since we have established that agency, it, too, has a duty to agree local performance targets with the local authority.

The clause seeks to place a duty to involve on a wider set of authorities. It represents a simple, logical extension of the local community’s ability to have its say, and to be informed about and become involved in a wider range of local services, as appropriate.

The question was asked why this list is not the same as the duty to promote democracy list. It is not a question of having the same lists; it is a different process. This list is for those partner organisations that form part of the duty to co-operate and part of the local area agreement.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked whether subsection (4)(a) gives an authority any powers. The clause is worded to mean that new duty does not grant a public authority any new powers; it is intended to exist alongside other statutory duties. It does not enable authorities to pass on duties or responsibilities to another body beyond any powers set out in legislation governing that authority. With that explanation, I hope we can agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Amess. The only person who spotted the printing error was the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who did not think it was a printing error and came in at 9 o’clock in any event, so there we are.

I also welcome the Minister, who will be hoping that the passage of this Bill through Committee is easier than that of the last Bill with which she was engaged. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon that the Minister would be unwise to move her place, because apparently, Ministers are sometimes reliant on sources of inspiration. I am never going to be a Minister, sadly, so I do not know, but it is unwise for a Minister to separate herself too far from those sources.

This clause, which seeks to give guidance, would ordinarily be inoffensive, but as it contains the words to which clause 23 applies, for which we did not care, we do not care for this clause, either.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

The arguments that were made in relation to clause 23 apply to this one, if that is the reason why the Opposition are opposing it.

Clause 25

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 25, page 16, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 27, in clause 25, page 16, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 28, in clause 25, page 17, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).

Clause stand part.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

After a faltering start, it is great to be back on the second day of the Bill. I welcome the Minister to her place. I do not have a problem with her sitting there, because, with the sun coming up, she looks positively angelic.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Radiant.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Indeed.

The amendment is cunningly disguised as a probing amendment. Conservative members of the Committee feel that there was not sufficient debate in the other place on financial provision for tenant representative bodies. The specific questions that my noble Friend Baroness Warsi put to the Minister, Baroness Andrews, and others were not properly addressed.

There is a wider issue about this clause. We have heard that, in many respects, the Bill contains the fag ends that could not be put in other Bills. As the appropriate Minister advised us, part 8, on construction contracts, should have been a separate Bill in the same legislative programme. It is not and instead, it was tacked on to the end of this Bill. In the same way, this clause should more properly have been included in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which I was privileged to be involved with on Report and Third Reading.

The clause seems to be out of place, and there are issues with the definitions in it. There has been some debate about the concept of “other residential property”, and whether it is right in the Bill to give carte blanche financial responsibility not only to the representation of social tenants and the functions of the organisation set up in their name, but to the tenants of social housing in other residential property in England.

In Committee in the other place on 3 February, Baroness Warsi asked:

“Once the Secretary of State has provided the money, who will spend it? What will it be spent on? Who will account for it, and to whom? I will be grateful if the Minister will explain the meaning of the words “financial assistance” so that we can read the explanation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2009; Vol. 707, c. GC151.]

The terminology used in the clause is too wide, and on that basis, we do not feel predisposed towards supporting it.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the hon. Gentleman played some part in the passage of the 2008 Act, he will presumably understand that the provision of social and affordable housing embraces a range of different landlords and different types of housing, including intermediate rent and what would traditionally be seen as social housing. Is he seriously suggesting that we should have a rigid distinction that limits the tenant voice solely to those people defined as living in traditional social housing, and that others in the more widespread tenure options that are rightly being developed should be excluded?

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Obviously, I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of housing. However, it would be remiss of me not to say that I would take his intervention a little more seriously had his Government in the last 12 years done something about, for instance, leasehold reform. They have had plenty of opportunities to make changes through primary and secondary legislation, and have failed to do so. This is about listening to and consulting people, and acting on perceived current failings in respect of leasehold.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hesitate to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman should reflect that the Government passed the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. It would be incorrect to give the impression that the Government have not legislated on this subject.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

That is all very well, but, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, key provisions of that Act have never been enacted. That is still a source of contention in the housing sector.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but would the establishment of that body not enable tenants to press for exactly the changes he is talking about? Is he not actually arguing against the amendment that he has tabled?

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

That is one interpretation. The hon. Lady always likes a good argument. The clause and the debate around it encapsulate the whole problem with this Government. If they cannot in the space of seven years enact the proposals in the 2002 Act, I bow to the hon. Lady’s optimism that establishing a consultative body across the whole housing sector is going to bring about those necessary changes.

In answer to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, I believe that it is important for social tenants and tenants in the private sector to be consulted on significant changes in legislation that have an impact on their quality of life, housing tenure and their future. Indeed, I would commend our housing Green Paper to the right hon. Gentleman, as it touches on those issues—I am sure that he has read it from cover to cover. However, we are looking at the ramifications of the clause. It is too opaque, too loosely defined and possibly falls outside the remit of the Bill, which deals with local democracy. It is not a housing matter per se, and on that basis we would not seek to support it if we divide.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

It is indeed a delight to see you back in the Chair, Mr Amess, however briefly this morning.

The hon. Member for Peterborough quite rightly proposed his amendment as a point for debate—a probing amendment—so that we could discuss the Government’s movement towards a situation which has been envisaged for some time, with tenants having a far stronger voice at a national level. I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the principles behind the amendment, which is seeking to create a stark distinction between social landlords and other tenants.

There was an opportunity to debate the housing policy of the main parties earlier this week, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and others discovered, there does not seem to be a huge amount of enthusiasm among Conservative Members for social housing. That is something that I discovered during the recent council elections in my own constituency. A Conservative candidate who was not successful on this occasion was keen to point out in a public meeting the problems associated with social housing estates, describing them in a way I thought we had all moved on from. I am sure that the hon. Member for Peterborough and his hon. Friends in Committee would be of the opinion that that candidate’s views are outdated.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who is a fair-minded individual, would not wish to give the impression that the Conservative party is not committed to social housing, given our record in the period between 1979 and 1997. We saw lots of innovative methods of delivering social housing—flats above shops, housing action trusts and tenant management organisations, to name but a few. If he read our Green Paper he would see that we remain committed, and because we have so many councillors at local level it is Conservative councillors who have been building council houses. In the past 12 years, Labour councils have failed to do so.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am sure that councils of all parties would want to reflect on the housing records of various councils. In Conservative housing policy, I still detect a direction towards the selling off of social housing. That is a continued theme, and a problem when we are desperate to secure more affordable rented accommodation across the country. I suspect, Mr Amess, that if I continue down this line, you may well rule me out of order.

The Liberal Democrats are a bit more sympathetic to the idea of a commonality of problems and issues for all tenants who want to be sure that, in their relationship with their landlord, they hold some of the cards, whether their landlord is an RSL or a private landlord. We are somewhat less concerned about the sorts of distinctions that the hon. Member for Peterborough raised.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne questioned the need for the body, given that the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords has recently come into existence. The Government are reacting and jumping around rather than thinking ahead and planning. The Bill considers some housing measures, but it has become a hybrid measure for all sorts of areas of policy. However, there are some urgent issues that we need to consider. The Government have said that they will act to deal with the issue of repossession when landlords are in difficulty—that problem has huge consequences for the tenants in that property in the buy-to-let market. They say that they will act at the earliest opportunity to do something about that situation, and perhaps the Bill is a missed opportunity, given that it considers housing matters. In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are less concerned to make such a sharp distinction between tenants in social housing and other tenants, but we are sympathetic to the view already expressed that we are in danger of duplicating existing measures .

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I have grave reservation about this whole clause and whether it is worth trying to amend it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough seeks to do. It flies in the face of the whole concept we have developed in this country of representative democracy. Normally if a body is to be representative, we required it to be elected and to have the authority to fulfil the wishes of those who elect it. In the Bill, we are told that the Government are going to appoint a body, and so this body represents those people. They do not choose it: it is imposed on them and set up on their behalf. It is a soviet-style council elected and imposed from the top. That is unless I am sadly mistaken and there is some proposal for this body to be elected by the social tenants whom it claims to represent. However, I see no such clause in the legislation.

Nor does the body have any power to implement the policies which it is supposed to introduce, support, sustain or promote on behalf of those whom it represents. The people who do that, of course, are councillors—they are the people who, in the past, have been held to be the representatives of the social tenants and residents of other residential property, not people who are appointed undemocratically by a Government whose Prime Minister is not even elected himself and who fears elections at every level. I therefore have grave reservation about the measure.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Was the right hon. Gentleman in John Major’s Government?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I was, and I helped to secure his re-election. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will achieve that in the case of his leader. The other reasons for my reservations are the specific ones that brought me onto this Committee as a result of my having taken part in the debate on Second Reading. I want to reinforce the principle that representatives are accountable to those whose interests they serve and whom their policies directly affect. That means that if a council chooses to build in the area of another council, and that affects both the social tenants and the residents of other residential property in that area, that is a monstrosity, because the council will not be accountable to those whom it most affects.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

I have some sympathy with the argument that local government should be more involved in these boards in the way the right hon. Gentleman says. It is a wee bit rich of him, however, to be arguing that case, given that under Mrs. Thatcher, his Government stopped local councils building council houses and restricted the budgets to local level. Saying that democracy should be enhanced at local level is one thing; starving it of funds, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did, is another.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will treat me with the generosity of spirit for which he is renowned as a sinner who repenteth. I hope in the same spirit to have his support when we come to a Division on this clause and particularly on the new clause that I will later introduce and which may remedy some of the defects in the measure.

Whatever representative body exists—I hope that it will be councils rather than something appointed on high by the state—I want it to have responsibility for what it does in its own area, and not be allowed to do things in other people’s areas where it is not accountable to those whom it affects. Why does the Minister think that that is satisfactory and what sort of representation would she like to provide for the inhabitants of Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Lilley in my constituency, who may find their homes in their part of north Hertfordshire swamped by housing built by Luton and South Bedfordshire councils. They will have no say in the matter; they cannot vote against the councillors who proposed the matter; they will have no influence over it; and they will have no one to represent them, other than myself at parliamentary level. I would like the Minister to tell me why she has not provided any representation for them and restricted the responsibilities of the councillors in Luton and South Bedfordshire to meeting the needs of their own inhabitants in their own areas.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to finish my cup of coffee, Mr. Amess. I wanted to make a small gesture towards the modernisation of Parliament and I am glad that I have been allowed to do so.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I have to confess that I had not seen what the right hon. Gentleman was doing and I have to enforce rules. Until there are changes, drinking tea or coffee is not permissible. I just turned a blind eye, given that there was some confusion about the start of proceedings.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Reform often emerges from confusion, as indeed did humanity, if I may so.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that under this Government it usually ends in confusion?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Perhaps the hon. Member for Eccles should inquire of the Housing Minister what has happened to the Government’s proposals to look again at the destination of housing revenue. At the moment, a significant amount is pre-empted by the Treasury. If he wishes to see more funds committed to the construction of social housing, perhaps he should ask the Under-Secretary what she intends to do about the very large amounts of money which is in effect taxed away from big authorities and which could otherwise go back into housing.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Eccles, does my right hon. Friend agree that in practice in the period 1979-97, a lot of housing subsidy was remitted from the south of England to the north of England—to local authorities and Labour voting areas—based on housing need, which is as it should be?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

It was, but one has to be careful before one sees hard geographic lines in that. This proposal comes from the Cave report. Our attitude should depend on what clarification and precision the Minister can give about how it will work in practice. I can see the argument for having such a body—it was part of a well received bunch of recommendations—but the question is how it will work in practice.

As for the expression, “other residential property”, I assume, along with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, that that is intended to widen the net to embrace all categories of sub-market provision. If the Minister would clarify that phrase—and if there is no better way of capturing that concept than that particular phrase—that might set some minds to rest. As things stand at the moment, “other residential property”, could mean that if Madonna decides to rent another mansion block somewhere, she could claim representation on the tenants’ body, which, I assume, is not the intention of the measure. Indeed, any MP who rents property in London could claim they were a tenant and demand to be part of the body, so I am just seeking some precision.

Secondly, what will the body actually do? How is it going to be formed, and who is going to sit on it? How are its members going to be chosen? We live in a world in which more people sit on quangos in England than sit on local councils as elected members. It is an astonishing statistic, but it happens to be true; local democracy has largely given way to quangocracy. We just need to be sure, if we are creating another quango, that it really is necessary to do a particular job.

The Bill says that the body could be an “existing body”. Will the Minister give us an example of an existing body which might qualify under this clause to be nominated as the tenant representative body? Moreover, who is the interlocutor going to be? Presumably it is the homes and communities quango—is that its interlocutor, or is the interlocutor going to be the Department or the local councils? Who is it going to talk to, and about what?

Most of the complaints I receive from tenants are about the behaviour of other tenants. It is about anti-social behaviour, or people using drugs, or needles in the garden; it is basically about people whom they do not think suitable being put in next door and creating all sorts of disturbance and problems so that their lives become miserable. That is the overwhelming category of complaints I receive from tenants. If this gave some assistance to local councils in dealing with that issue, so that people in social housing felt they had neighbours they could trust and were at ease in their homes, that would be a great asset.

The next category of things people are concerned about is allocations. However many properties are transferred, the allocations usually remain with the local authority, so the allocation policy is a council policy, even if the ownership of the properties is moved elsewhere—whether it is a transfer authority or an arm’s length management organisation. That is another area of concern.

Often, if there is a transfer, part of that deal is a programme of modernisation of kitchens or bathrooms or whatever. A common concern is that, if there is a modernisation programme going through the estate, its progress appears to be inefficient, too slow or not up to required standards. I would therefore like reassurance that the organisation, if it is set up, will focus on very practical issues of concern for tenants, and that it is not going to get itself into an ideological argument about the nature of housing, or the merits or demerits of transfer proposals—in other words, that it will deal with the nitty-gritty of life, which is almost entirely the material which comes into our surgeries.

If the Minister can reassure us about the practicality of how this will function, how it will represent the tenants, how its members will be chosen, how it will report back, and how it will be accountable to their tenants, and the nature of the interlocutors, there may be a case for not opposing the clause. However, a huge amount hinges on how the Minister responds to those points.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I will try to sum up the various points that have been made.

The hon. Member for Peterborough said that these were probing amendments, but he went on to say that he intended to oppose the clause. I am saddened that the Conservative party does not support the creation of National Tenant Voice, a body that will act as an advocate for millions of tenants, not least by enabling a direct dialogue between tenants and Government, and between tenants and the new social housing regulator. The amendments would restrict activities to matters concerning only social housing tenants, rather than tenants of other residential property. I do not think that that is right.

The creation of National Tenant Voice is part of the wider reform of social housing regulation, and the new body’s initial focus should be tenants in social housing. However, I do not want the benefits of National Tenant Voice to be confined to social housing tenants alone, although they should be its core focus. Many of the issues that concern social housing tenants are of equal concern to many tenants in the private sector. National Tenant Voice will be an independent body. Once it is established, it will decide whether to seek, at some later date, to give a voice to tenants in the private sector, particularly the most vulnerable of those tenants. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow such a decision to be made. However, the clause does not envisage that National Tenant Voice would be able to represent private sector tenants alone. Where private sector tenants are represented, the body must also represent social housing tenants.

I shall respond to some of the specific questions that were asked, such as why the clause did not form part of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. That was because the original intention was for the National Consumer Council to house National Tenant Voice. However, on reflection, it was decided that that would be too great a burden to place on the new body, and it was recommended that we should have a stand-alone body. This legislation is coming forward because we cannot set up the body until we have the power to fund it.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Is it not the case that existing tenant organisations, such as the Tenants and Residents Organisations of England, and other bodies representing tenants and tenant management organisations, participated in that discussion and recommended the outcome that is now being brought forward: there should be a stand-alone body, rather than a body that forms part of the NCC? This is not just a good idea, but a proposal that reflects the responses and wishes of tenant representative bodies.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that salient point.

The other question, which was originally put by the hon. Member for Peterborough, before being picked up by other members of the Committee, was about to whom the new body will be accountable. National Tenant Voice will be a non-departmental public body and publicly accountable to Parliament. Its board will oversee expenditure on research, advocacy and support of tenant groups locally.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I welcome the Minister to her new post—I do not think that I have had the opportunity to do so before. Will she explain how the membership of National Tenant Voice will be determined and tell us how large that membership will be? How representative will the organisation be of not just different types of tenants, but the different problems that might exist in different parts of the country?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I will come to that.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Before the Minister does so, she said that the new body will be accountable to Parliament, so will its accounts, activities and outcomes all be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, as I assume they will be?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Inspiration might come to me, but I cannot reply to that question right at the moment. However, I might be able to by the time that we get to the precise accountability—[Interruption.]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. First, I say to the Committee that Members cannot intervene on an intervention. Secondly, if members of the Committee wish to make points, they must stand up to do so. I will not allow sedentary remarks to be made from this point onwards.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I am able to confirm to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that the new body’s accounts, activities and outcomes will all be subject to scrutiny by the NAO.

We are now coming to the issue of how the new body will be composed and who will choose its board. As the new body will be publicly funded, Cabinet Office guidelines require that the Secretary of State must choose the board. However, the Secretary of State will have no power to implement policy. Tenants will form a majority of the board members and will put forward names for the board to the Secretary of State. We also have a project board advising on the remit and composition of National Tenant Voice, and we are holding tenant awareness events this summer so that we can achieve the maximum involvement of tenants in the process.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Is it intended that somebody will write to, or communicate with, every single tenant whose interests will be represented by the board of the new body to invite nominations, or to set out a mechanism through which they can influence nominations? I ask because the new body sounds like another quango with the Secretary of State controlling it.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Our intention is that tenants will propose names to the Secretary of State so that the latter can choose the board. I have explained the reasons behind the legal requirement on the Secretary of State to choose the board. We will conduct a formal recruitment service, which will be informed by tenancy groups.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

This body will represent “tenants etc”. Non-social tenants in my constituency who are lumped together under “etc” might feel rather insulted. However, could they propose, choose and elect representatives, and even recall them if they are useless, or are they to be treated with as much contempt as they are in being described as “etc”?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

No disrespect was intended in the phrase “tenants etc”. Where does that appear in the Bill?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

The clause title.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I see. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not found in the substance of the clause, however.

I want to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. By extending the enabling power to residents of other residential properties, we want to capture non-social housing tenants. However, those tenants must share the concerns of the social housing sector—I am not talking about millionaires who rent.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

How will it be established that a non-social tenant shares those concerns? Who will make the judgment and on what basis?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Private tenants can put themselves forward to sit on the board and oversee the national council. I must emphasise that this is an independent, non-departmental public body, and it will be for National Tenant Voice to make that decision. We are putting into the Bill the enabling power to include the concerns of non-social housing tenants. The idea is to provide a resource to support tenants locally, if they have complaints against the policies and practices of specific landlords that affect tenants as a group, not individuals.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The implication of the Minister’s remarks is that there will be representation of only the needs of larger landlords with concerns similar to those of social landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made the point that one of the biggest growth sectors at the moment is the buy-to-let market, in which there are many individual landlords. The biggest problem for landlords is the threat of repossession, and that problem also means that tenants have no idea what will happen to them. I do not think that that major issue will be represented properly by this body. We need primary legislation at the earliest opportunity to address that problem—this would have been a great opportunity to do that.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

As I said, this is an independent body. We are giving it an enabling power to include those matters in its remit, if it so wishes, but its primary core concern will be social housing. However, this clause will enable it to consider the concerns of the private sector as well.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

How will the Government raise the awareness—to use one of my favourite expressions—of private sector tenants of the imminent existence of this body and of how they can propose candidates? There might well be a framework of local organisations—an architecture through which voices can be expressed—within the social housing sector, but that is not the case with the private rented sector. With shorthold tenancies of, say, six months, there will often be quite a rapid turnover. How will they feel that they have just as much of a crack of the whip as social tenants? I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that their needs might be very similar, and in many ways, given that they do not have security of tenure, their situation might even be more acute.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Again, I return to my earlier point. We have provided for flexibility so that the national tenant voice can include private sector tenants if it so wishes; however, its core focus will be social housing. The awareness-raising, which we will do in the summer, will probably be done through those groups, although it will not exclude private sector groups from having an input and proposing names. This is a real step forward for all tenants, especially social housing tenants, and I shall be very disappointed if Opposition parties vote against the clause.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

We were waiting for the Minister to assuage our significant concerns. I fear that the clause is an example of mission creep from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. We have some serious concerns on a number of bases.

We have to ask whether the body is truly independent. Listening to the good fist that the Minister made of a sticky wicket, I suspect that the answer is no. Next, we are being asked to make a carte blanche commitment to financial assistance to a body whose efficacy we are not entirely convinced of. We have significant concerns on the basic, practical issue of the database. Who will maintain it? Is it possible to maintain a private sector tenant database to feed opinions to the independent body?

As I said right at the outset in my remarks on Tuesday, if the clause did not exist, would we need to invent it? Would housing be demonstrably any worse without it? I do not think that it would. As the Minister will know, many registered social landlords have effective and successful communications with their tenants. I suspect that the body may not be needed.

It is bizarre and surreal to measure the vulnerability, or otherwise, of private sector tenants. Surely, it is not for a Minister or an organisation to measure how vulnerable tenants feel, by making a value judgment under primary legislation. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. We have serious concerns.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that a number of existing RSLs and other social landlords have existing arrangements for relations with tenants that work well and ensure that there is feedback to those landlords. That is absolutely correct. But does he not understand that the whole purpose of the National Tenant Voice is to provide a national voice, bringing together the various disparate tenant representative groups throughout the country? The absence of a single voice at the moment makes it much harder for the Government to understand the priorities and concerns of tenant groups. That is the basis of the National Tenant Voice.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly in favour of the clause. The irony is that the Bill effectively ignores the importance of housing in the relationship between local voters, people whose opinions should be sought and any proposal. That does not assuage my concerns. In fact, it undermines the representative capacity of local councillors and MPs who are dealing with housing issues.

More particularly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made an important point about the tenure of his constituents, and how they were going to be represented in, for instance, decisions regarding residential development in his area made by Luton unitary authority and other local authorities. I do not believe that the clause is well written; it is far too oblique.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the current Conservative thinking is on secure tenancies? Does he support their being left in place, or is he prepared to remove them?

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I know—

Mr. Curryrose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I ask the hon. Member to not be tempted to respond and to draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The Labour Government have had a very robust debate on tenancies that was initiated by the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) and the lamented right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Although the Minister has made a good fist of it, huge questions remain unanswered. On that basis, we feel disposed to divide the Committee.

Mr. Lilleyrose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden wants to catch my attention. Perhaps after we have voted on the amendment and before we vote on clause stand part, he may want to make his point.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Did you or did you not hear what we heard—the official Opposition mumbling no, but keeping very quiet?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I will deal with one point of order at a time. I did put the question again and Members seemed to remain silent for a while, but they said something eventually.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Did you not, in the last sitting, hear a member of the Committee vote yes and then be allowed to—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I wish now to proceed with the Division.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Amess, for your judgment, with the wisdom of Solomon, in suggesting that I respond now, rather than on the amendment. My first concern about the clause is what it will cost. It refers to assistance that may be given in financial form by way of a grant, loan or guarantee, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. To put it more crudely, it is an open-ended opportunity to disperse financial patronage, and I would like to know what sort of order of magnitude of money—taxpayers’ money—is likely to be disbursed on this body.

My second concern is why is it necessary. We have a system called parliamentary democracy. On average, one in five of our voters is a resident of social housing. Do we not represent them? Are we not the representative body that determines policy affecting the social tenants that elect us? Is it not our duty to make sure that we know about their concerns, their opportunities, how we could improve the system and how policy can be introduced? To hive off that responsibility to another body is to reduce to the responsibility of parliamentarians. Last year, I introduced a Bill designed to relate the remuneration of Members of Parliament to their responsibilities. It suggested that a principle should be established: if we reduce MPs’ responsibilities, MPs should be paid less. It was not universally popular in the House, but it seemed to resonate in the country.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I had not anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a substantial speech, given that we have already had the debate on clause stand part. I thought that he just wished to make an intervention.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Perhaps I can convert it into a question.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have indication from the Minister that she is not minded to respond.

Clause 26

Clause 27

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

The Committee will have noted that, in relation to all the clauses bar one, the official Opposition have adopted what might be called a scorched-earth policy towards the Bill. At first glance, we were inclined to take the same view of the next two clauses. However, I have to confess that we have looked at them again. They were introduced by Lord Graham in the upper House and the Department allowed them a lot of leeway. Clause 27, in particular, was welcomed by our noble Friend Lord Hanningfield. We have no objection to the clauses.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I shall make one important point. We are now dealing with references to freewomen and freemen. Should the term not simply be “a freeperson”, given the prevailing wisdom that now we have a chair, not a chairman, and we talk about persons, not men and women? Should the term not be “a freeperson”, or perhaps just “a free”?

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership—chairmanship, not leadership, Mr. Illsley, unless something more bizarre is going on. Bearing in mind what has already happened in Committee today, I would not be at all surprised if you had plans for world domination.

I shall make some general comments about freedoms of cities and towns. It is fantastic to recognise the hard work of citizens in such a way. It is a valuable honour to bestow. But once again, why is it necessary to set it down in primary legislation? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that matter. I understand the problem—some charters laying down how freemen and freewomen of a city or town are elected have become out of date and make it difficult to appoint women—but I am not entirely sure why that needs to be taken in hand in primary legislation.

I understand that such laws need to be more easily amendable, but why not free up the organisations on the ground to allow them to use their discretion? Some of the provisions are eminently sensible. The recognition of civil partners and spouses and the admission of women are welcome, but I am not entirely sure why the Bill needs to deal with whether we call them freemen or women.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall pointed out to me, some of the qualifying resolutions require a majority of the existing freemen or women to elect the people whose names will be added. I wonder, as those people are often getting a little bit old, whether they might run out of numbers. I am slightly worried that, if the requirement is for freemen to nominate someone else to be given the freedom, there might not be enough of them around to make that decision. I wonder whether that issue needs to be addressed. It is an example of where we need to give more flexibility on the ground, rather than specifying things rigidly in primary legislation. However, everyone welcomes the principle that the clause is trying to achieve.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Illsley. I am glad that there is a broad welcome from both Opposition parties to the principles behind the clause. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, it was fully welcomed in the other place.

On the question of primary legislation, it is true that at least one guild has been able to amend the rights of admission to include women, but much depends on how the rights of admission were established—if in a charter, on what the charter says. Although some guilds have found sufficient flexibility in their rules to enable them to admit women or make other amendments to their admissions practices, others have not been able to do so because the charters or other sources of law from which their rules derive have no simple process for amendment. The clause will make that easier and provide a framework to make changes in the future. That is why it should appear in primary legislation.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I understand that point, but looking back to the broader thrust of the Bill, which the Government claim is trying to engage people in democracy, could we not have much broader terms that would allow some kind of public ballot or petition to prompt the granting of the freedom of a city to individuals, rather than a narrowly defined group of people? Would this not be an opportunity to throw open the whole issue to more public engagement, rather than just introducing some narrow changes that, while making improvements to make it easier for women to be admitted, for example, do not address the bigger issue?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

This is enabling legislation, not compulsory legislation. We are making it easier for guilds to broaden their scope, and I want guilds to do that, so that we enable more people to take part. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 29

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

It has been a long day. This clause was the subject of some debate in another place, particularly by Liberal Democrat peers. Those of us who were local borough and district councillors or were involved in local government in the 1980s and 1990s understand the background. The Widdecombe report of 1986 correctly led to the decision to exclude certain officers based on salary from serving in a representative capacity on other local authorities under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The Opposition believe that the clause is incongruous. It is clear from the debate in another place that there was no rationale for watering down the Widdecombe proposals. The Minister may refer to the Councillors Commission’s decisions on political restrictions, but the clause begins the process of undermining what eventually had a political consensus when it was established. That legislation defended the integrity and professionalism of officers and reassured elected councillors that the advice that they received from paid officers was both impartial and not the result of their political allegiance. The clause, however, begins to undermine that by seeking to disregard the responsibility and duty of the local authority to keep a register of those affected by the 1989 Act.

On that basis, perhaps the Minister will explain the rationale for including the clause in this part of the Bill. It seems to be a case of micro-managing the affairs of local authorities who are perfectly capable of interpreting correctly the prevailing legislation. Can the Minister reassure us that this is not the beginning of the end of ensuring that political partiality does not creep back into the system?

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

Conservative Members think that the clause will water down the Widdecombe rules, and I share some of their concerns that it does appear to be a partial process: it will remove the salary restrictions but will not seek to put anything else in its place. Simply imposing an arbitrary wage level may not make sense, because some posts with lower wages may be politically sensitive and other posts that are above the threshold may not need to be politically restrictive. I would like greater freedom for local authorities to determine such things and to ensure that declarations of interest can be registered for all employees using a clear system.

Speaking as someone who was employed by a local council, I think that just because someone is unable to be politically active does not necessarily mean that their decisions are therefore impartial. Someone may not be able to declare their views publicly, but that does not mean that their private views might not cause similar difficulties. In this case, the Government have a much bigger story to tell. They are nibbling away at one aspect of it without necessarily giving people confidence that there is a process further down the line that will keep partiality out of key areas of government, as it rightly needs to be.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Before Report, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a list of the number of people in one county who are councillors on a different council. I wonder whether it is a real or a mythical problem. I cannot think of a single person in North Yorkshire, in the whole time that I have represented it, who has been an employee of one authority and a councillor in another. People cannot leave their political allegiance behind when they go in and out of the relative town hall.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

My understanding is that this is not just about standing for election, but about being able to express views publicly in favour of a political party. It is not simply about conflicts arising from individuals standing for public office.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

No, I accept that, but the most high-profile way in which someone might wish to express a political opinion is by standing for election to a council, and there are a number of bodies that have a political role to which people can be nominated. The Dales national park is not entirely made up of councillors, for example. I wonder how real the issue is. Quite frankly, why are we bothering with it? I think that we have invented a problem, and I do not understand why we should invent a solution to a non-problem.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Hon. Members’ contributions suggest that there might be some misunderstanding about what the clause will actually do. It will merely remove the link between salary level and the designation for local authority posts. The salary level is currently a sum of money, not a scale for a post, and the sum of money has not been updated for a number of years. We therefore continue to support the policy behind the Widdecombe rules, which help to ensure the political impartiality of local authority employees. The removal of the link between salary and whether a post is considered politically restricted will not undermine the impartiality.

If the legislation is enacted, the following posts will remain politically restricted: chief executive, chief officer, deputy chief officer, monitoring officer, political assistant, and any person whose post is specified in a list maintained by the local authority whose duties involve giving advice to the authority on a regular basis and/or speaking regularly to the media on behalf of the authority. In relation to the last category, the ultimate test of whether an individual post is politically sensitive will depend on the nature of the duties that the post entails. Every officer falling within that category may be entitled to exemption from political restriction if the nature of the duties of that post does not require the post holder to be politically neutral. Applications for exemption are considered by the local authority standards committee.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Will the hon. Lady give me the assurance that anyone involved in planning will be covered by the restrictions?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

That would be up to the individual local authority to determine. It would have to apply the rules that I have set out and would be subject to the standards committee.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I am trying to understand what process will follow if the changes are adopted. Presumably, some posts are automatically politically restricted at the moment because of the salary level. If, after the proposals are put in place, some posts will not be automatically restricted because of the salary level and a judgment may be needed about whether or not they should be deemed to be politically restricted, will every council therefore have to go through a process of auditing those affected to ensure that positions are not missed or added by mistake?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I am perfectly happy to confirm that to the hon. Lady. The clause will provide a more sensible way of going forward than using an arbitrary sum of money or a salary level.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I do not think that there was any confusion among Conservative Members. We just want assurances from the Minister that the Government are still committed to the enduring principles of the Widdecombe report, which have lasted for 20 years. In fact, the Library supporting documents state that the clause is not related to a monetary sum but to spine point 44 on the national scale.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I think that we are getting into specifics, because it is a point on the scale of salaries, but it will be a specific sum of money each year. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s point is the Opposition’s position, but in the other place Lord Hanningfield certainly welcomed the provision, agreed that we should look at the role played by the officer, rather than the salary, and described the salary point as “totally outdated.”

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I still think that there are some serious questions about the operation of the clause and suspect that, if it is accepted, there will need to be a significant amount of secondary legislation to support it, because of the number of elected councillors who might be affected by it. Given the Minister’s assurances, which I think the Committee will find satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. There is no amendment. This is a clause stand part debate.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I am sorry, Mr. Illsley. I will rephrase that: we are minded not to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Our approach to clause 30 is, in a manner of speaking, the opposite of our approach to clauses 28 and 29, which we have just considered. When we originally looked at clauses 28 and 29, we were inclined to be sceptical and looked at what happened in the Lords, but we came to the conclusion that they should pass muster. We have not tabled one of our repetitious and unselectable amendments in an attempt to delete clause 30, because we want to give the Minister a chance to justify it. Having said that, it did not have a friendly reception in the other place, where both Lord Hanningfield and Baroness Hanwee were extremely sceptical about it, drawing attention to the difference between the present state of affairs, where there is a monitoring officer, and a section 151 officer, and trying to get the Minister in the Lords to explain where that post would slot into the present arrangements. Indeed, Baroness Hanwee spoke of her opposition to the clause.

At the risk of sounding like a broken gramophone record, we come back again and again to the same question: bang in the middle of part 1 is the word “must”. Must we have “must” in the Bill? Need the statute book have such specific obligations placed on local authorities? The Minister probably has some explanation up her sleeve for why the finance officer, referred to in subsection 4(c), and the monitoring officer and the head of the authority’s paid service, referred to in paragraphs (b) and (a) respectively, may not be designated and why other posts may be, and I look forward to hearing it.

In summary, obviously the role of scrutinising what takes place in local councils is extremely important. We on the official Opposition Benches say that the correct balance must be struck between proper scrutiny and the need not to overburden local authorities with so many scrutinising duties from the centre that it makes it difficult for them to run their affairs with flexibility. We wait to hear what the Minster has to say, but we are far from convinced that the clause, as drafted, should stand part of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The key question is if this is the answer, what is the question? Is there a concern that the current scrutiny processes are not sufficient? Do we feel that the scrutiny procedures are not scrutinised enough? If so, do we need to open up channels for that to take place? I draw the Committee’s mind back to some comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who said that if we are imposing this measure on all authorities, does it pass the Isles of Scilly test? Will the Isles of Scilly, which has a very small council, now be required to appoint another officer to undertake scrutiny, when there are a relatively small number of officers to scrutinise?

I am not clear why the duty that is outlined in this clause does not apply

“to a district council for an area for which there is a county council”

as outlined in subsection (5). Surely if such a position is needed at local authority level to ensure that overview and scrutiny committees follow due process, then that should apply at any level of local government. I do not see why it should just apply to the principal authority in two-tier authorities. I share the scepticism that has been expressed, and I look forward to the Minister explaining the question to which this is the answer.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I am glad that we all agree that overview and scrutiny is an important way of ensuring local accountability and transparency. Moreover, it is an important tool for empowering communities and enabling local people, through their democratically elected representatives, to participate. However, we must ensure that all lead councils rise to the standards of the best, and that all are aware that this powerful tool is an effective means of driving improvement.

For effective scrutiny, it is important that there is proper officer support and that officer resources are in place to provide that support and advice. The evaluation document, “The New Council Constitutions: The Outcomes and Impact of the Local Government Act 2000”, made a number of important points. First, less officer support is provided for scrutiny compared with executive functions. Secondly, scrutiny works best and is more robust in areas in which resources are committed. Thirdly, scrutiny arrangements are not as robust as executive arrangements. Moreover, we looked carefully at the Centre for Public Scrutiny survey, which sought views from the local government sector on the single element that would do most to improve the overview and scrutiny function. One of the highest responses was to provide more resources and staff.

We also consulted extensively on how to implement the proposals for scrutiny and support set out in the White Paper, “Communities in control”. The Centre for Public Scrutiny thought that that would be essential, if scrutiny is to benefit from the new powers and responsibilities outlined in the White Paper. We looked at three corporate statutory posts, which, experience has shown, are the foundation for ensuring that councils devote sufficient attention and support to those key functions in a way that is appropriate to their local circumstances.

We have given careful consideration to views expressed in the consultation, which make a compelling case for our proposal to replace the requirement on lead councils to have a scrutiny officer who is responsible for supporting the work of their overview and scrutiny committee, which does not have to be their only role. We are not saying that councils should have one person who only does that. We leave that decision to local councils.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

Will the Minister clarify whether there will be additional resources for such a function and that it will not be just another job title for an officer to take on? Will there be resources that enable the kind of support that she has talked about?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I confirm that if this clause is passed, the resources will be made available within the funding process to support that role. I do not think that the approach we have set out is overly prescriptive, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe. It recognises the important role officer support plays in driving effective scrutiny, but balances that with the need to allow local flexibility. We have not attempted any complex prescription of the scrutiny resources, and the clause provides scope for local authorities to determine these detailed arrangements for themselves.

I have been asked why we have excluded certain council officers from becoming a scrutiny officer. Just as the scrutiny function is kept separate from the executive function by ensuring that members of the executive cannot serve on overview and scrutiny committees, it makes sense that the scrutiny officer should not hold one of the key corporate posts as head of paid services or chief financial officer. The monitoring officer’s role is to ensure that the authority conducts its business lawfully and with propriety. The post carries certain powers and duties. Although the role of scrutiny is to some extent complementary in that it also provides checks and balances on the exercise of executive functions, the role of the scrutiny officer is to support scrutiny by members, and not to carry it out. Allowing those two roles to be carried out by the same person could blur the distinction between the two functions and lead to confusion.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked why the requirements are not applied to district councils. We are trying to ensure that the quality of scrutiny in councils responsible for local area agreements is raised to the standards of the current best, which is why we have confined them to those authorities. On that basis, I hope that we can pass the clause.

Clause 31

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 31, page 25, line 12, leave out ‘The Secretary of State may by regulations’ and insert ‘local authorities may’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 34, in clause 31, page 25, line 36, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘arrangements’.

Amendment 35, in clause 31, page 26, line 19, leave out ‘Regulations’ and insert ‘Arrangements’.

Amendment 36, in clause 31, page 26, line 26, leave out ‘have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State’.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

The official Opposition, like other Opposition parties, were not convinced by the Minister’s explanation of clause 30. She said that the view had generally been expressed that it would be useful to have more resources and scrutiny and that representations had been made to the Department for Communities and Local Government, but it did not seem to us, on the basis of her comments, that local authorities and others were knocking at the Department’s door saying that scrutiny in local authorities was poor.

And that brings me directly to our amendments. Very often, amendments are probing amendments designed to test the Government’s intentions. However, these amendments would give the clause sufficient flexibility to make it just about bearable. Amendment 33 would remove the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power and give local authorities the flexibility to make this provision, if they so wish. Amendment 34 would replace “regulations”—again, made from the centre—with the more pliable word “arrangements”. That is also the case with the next amendment. Perhaps we have taken a rather severe view of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in amendment 36. However, together, our amendments would make the minimum necessary changes to the clause to ensure that it does not place a burden on local authorities that, on the basis of the Minister’s evidence, they should not have to carry.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I think that everybody in the Committee agrees that ensuring a strong scrutiny process is important in order for people to have confidence that their councils are well run and that, if there are any problems, a mechanism exists for investigating them fully. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the establishment of joint overview and scrutiny committees. There are many issues on which councils working together can be run more efficiently, and we can see an improved process.

Our problem is that we cannot see why the process must be determined by the Secretary of State. The concern is that it brings forward a background issue, which is that the Government always presume the best intentions in the Government and the worst in local authorities. The provisions are just another example of that: clearly, local councils cannot be trusted to come up with satisfactory arrangements; that will only be achieved if those arrangements are specified, once again, in primary legislation. That seems to be the theme of virtually every clause in the Bill.

The amendments presented by the hon. Member for Wycombe seem entirely sensible. They would make it clear that it is not only the local authority’s right but its responsibility to ensure that the process works effectively. For councils that might struggle to do so, the regulations might be an additional burden that will make it more difficult to fulfil those duties. Once again, the Government have no business requiring all local authorities to act entirely in a specified way. It is a matter for local authorities. It is depressing that we continue to have discussions such as this.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

If the Minister were to accept the amendments, would it not be a good opportunity to put into practice the new doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister yesterday about devolution?

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This is called the Local Democracy Bill, and the White Paper that informed much of it was all about putting communities back in control. Exactly how will the Bill put communities back in control? Even looked at in the most positive way, which is that it is about giving communities a better service—I am sure that the Government will present it that way—it certainly does not put them in control. It puts power in the hands of one person only, and that person is the Secretary of State.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Has the hon. Lady had a chance to read—I am sure that she has, as she is an assiduous chewer-through of material—a recent report called “The balance of power” by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, on which our parties do not have a majority? The conclusion reads:

“Central government should maintain a very high threshold before it intervenes in only the last resort.”

It ends:

“CLG is not as far down the road as some of its rhetoric might suggest.”

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

It is a challenge for all political parties. It is easy to use the rhetoric surrounding empowering communities and pushing down resource, but it is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that their actions confirm their words. At the moment, they appear to be contradicting them.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Of course, the supervision of the Secretary of State will be carried out by the regional office, so in practice, an official will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The practical decision could well be taken by somebody who is not elected.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

And then we are back into quangocracy and bureaucracy, which will continue to be remote to so many people. I have grave concerns about the clause. The amendments are an attempt to restate that. I think that the Conservatives also have a long way to go in persuading people that they are prepared to back up their rhetoric with actions, so if the Government were to adopt the amendments—I am inclined to support them—it might be an opportunity to demonstrate on a cross-party basis that not only are all the parties keen to use the rhetoric of localism, they are prepared to do something about it as well.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

On Second Reading, I declared my interest as a chairman of the Centre for Public Scrutiny; I stress that this is a non-pecuniary interest, a non-remuneratory post.

I have to say that what I have been hearing from the Opposition is a load of nonsense. This is not some kind of unwarranted Government interference: it is a sensible measure to enable joint scrutiny to be carried out by different local authorities—scrutiny that engages other activities, notably the health service and the criminal justice system. We all know the importance of joining up, and if we do not have central Government creating a legal framework that makes it clear that this can be done—

Mr. Goodmanrose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Will the hon. Gentleman please leave me for a moment? I simply want to make this point. If central Government do not create a clear, legal framework under which it is absolutely clear to local authorities that they can set up joint scrutiny committees, there will inevitably be variations in interpretation of what is within their power and what is not. This is where there is an absolute case for central Government to set out the framework. It does not impose obligation on local authorities: the powers are permissive. How they set up their joint scrutiny committees will be for them to decide, as will whether they set them up at all.

Both Opposition parties are completely wide of the mark on this. They are trying to see some kind of authoritarian, central Government diktat where it does not apply at all.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

If the right hon. Gentleman, to whose experience I defer, wants a framework he can have one, but why should not that framework say “local authorities may” rather than “the Secretary of State may” by regulations?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

For the very simple reason, as I just explained, that some authorities may take a different interpretation of the extent of the powers for some of the scrutiny bodies that may be set up, not just with other authorities, but with other parties as well. All the evidence of scrutiny—the Minister referred to the experience of the Centre for Public Scrutiny—suggests that there are huge benefits from cross-silo working by different authorities and bodies in the public service. We should surely be encouraging this and promoting a framework that makes it possible.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in and passion for this issue, but we are not talking about encouragement. The Bill is effectively forcing local authorities to amalgamate their functions. What is wrong with using the term “may” and giving more authority and autonomy to local authorities, if they have issues relating to social and economic commonality of interest?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. If he reads the Bill, he will see that the relevant phrase says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which any two or more local authorities in England may”—

It says “may”, not “must”. It is permissive; it helps local authorities; it gives clarity. It is Government acting sensibly: acting in response to representations, made by many people with experience of good scrutiny, that we should be encouraging cross-border and cross-sector working to ensure a more joined-up approach to the delivery of public services and better government at a local level.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The right hon. Gentleman says that the problem is that there have been variations in interpretation, but does he not think that a good thing, which allows for the boundaries to be pushed even further? Is it not also slightly risky to assume that joint scrutiny processes will in every case help overcome some of the silo thinking? I can think of a joint health and adult social care overview scrutiny committee that, from the point of view of the public, has been very confusing because it looks at decisions for which it has no responsibility. In many cases, it has been criticised for decisions that are entirely in the realm of health, and nothing to do with the council it is responsible for scrutinising. So this provision is not the only way of breaking down these silo issues.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Lady makes two points, the first of which is to leave it all to local authorities. I entirely concur with the principle that the format of the joint scrutiny committees can probably best be determined at a local level. The problem is that if individual local authorities are advised by their lawyers that their powers are perhaps limited, we may get different interpretations. One authority could take the view that it has the power to set up such a committee, and another might take a different view. That is why it is sensible to have a national framework.

The hon. Lady’s second point was that joint scrutiny is not always a good thing. Of course it is not always, and it can sometimes be done badly, but there are huge gains from different organisations with different perspectives working together. The experience of local authority involvement in health scrutiny is an interesting issue. It has helped local authorities, with their considerable social care responsibilities, to have a much better understanding of the interface between what they do and what the national health service does. That must be a good thing.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I have no doubt that it has helped to encourage joint working, but this is the Local Democracy Bill and much of what we have been considering is about aiding people’s understanding. I am not entirely convinced that in every case, these joint committees help people to understand where the responsibilities, and ultimately the budgets, also lie.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

They may not have worked in every case, but they have overwhelmingly been a force for good. I would have thought that the hon. Lady and her party would support this as a way of encouraging more joined-up working at local level, with the permissive power to enable local authorities to take useful initiatives.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I have a sense that we are travelling round different perimeters of the circle to arrive at the same point. If local authorities had to discover the boundaries of their powers themselves, would not the tradition of best practice before very long assert a common view of what was permitted? Would not that process of experimentation in a sense be rather creative in the process? Secondly, what the hell is the Local Government Association for?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Probably, given its recent difficulties, it is best to pass over that second question. On the first question, I give the right hon. Gentleman three names to show why his assumption is a bit optimistic. They are the names of local authorities with which I had considerable dealings when I was Local Government Minister because they were in an appalling mess: the London borough of Hackney, the metropolitan borough of Walsall and the district of Rossendale. Those are three different authorities under different political control—that is the reason why I mention them—that were not working well and where, despite the fact that this had been evident for many years, there was little sign of any improvements.

Sometimes it is necessary to give a little nudge and a little help in the right direction. When that is done it can often produce rather remarkable results. I am happy to say that all three of those local authorities are now working very much better—remarkably better than a decade ago. There is evidence of the perfectibility of man, woman and local government, but sometimes it requires a bit of a nudge. So just leaving it to the automatic process, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, may not be the right approach. The clause is eminently sensible. I believe that the Opposition’s amendments are misconceived and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recommend the clause to the Committee and that it will approve it.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I thank my right hon. Friend for sharing his considerable expertise and experience on this issue, and I entirely concur with his remarks. Unfortunately, I do not entirely concur, as might be expected, with the remarks of Opposition Members.

I reassure the Committee that we have not opted for this approach because we want to prescribe the fine details of how local arrangements work. To reiterate what my right hon. Friend said, the regulations simply ensure a broad framework and flexibility to address key questions relating to area scrutiny committees. This is an enabling power and a practical measure that allows us to address matters of important detail in regulations, to ensure that the various scrutiny provisions dovetail and work effectively without causing duplication or unnecessary burdens. I certainly see nothing unusual or sinister about making provision for such matters through regulation.

The Committee might be aware that we recently consulted on proposals for joint area scrutiny arrangements. Responses to that consultation highlighted a number of practical considerations. For instance, there were concerns about the need for full and fair representation of all interests and proper governance arrangements, and there is clearly a difficult but important balance to strike, and possibly quite complex arrangements to make.

As the proposal for any two or more authorities to appoint joint overview and scrutiny committees is new, it is even more important that we carefully consider those practical issues and work with key stakeholders to ensure that the right balance is struck. By addressing those detailed matters in regulations, we can ensure that the new arrangements work to deliver real benefits for communities.

On guidance, Parliament agreed and recognised the need for a statutory guidance-making power for the overview and scrutiny provisions introduced by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, including those for joint overview and scrutiny committees. Overview and scrutiny committees are already required to have regard to a basic level of statutory guidance and there is no good reason to treat joint overview and scrutiny committees differently. However, I should like to reassure the Committee that wherever possible, guidance should take the form of sector-led best practice guidance. That is why we are working with the Centre for Public Scrutiny to issue guidance to accompany the new overview and scrutiny powers, thereby limiting the need for statutory guidance.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to withdraw the amendment and support the clause as it stands.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

It might be a reflection of what a sad individual I am, but I have found this debate absolutely fascinating. It has been fascinating not because of anything I said, or even, with due respect, because of anything the Minister said—after all, we are both toiling workers in the vineyards respectively of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The debate has not even been fascinating because of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, well informed though she always is. It was compelling because of the exchanges between those two old rivals and friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The mastodons.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Mastodons is the word. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has been far more loyal this afternoon than he was with those ridiculous petition clauses when he voted the wrong way—I should say the right way, by accident or design. Of course, he meant what he said this afternoon.

There was a profound difference of philosophical approach that might illustrate what will happen when we reach the general election, whenever that is. On the one hand, my right hon. Friend says, “What’s the LGA for? What’s best practice for? Leave councils to their own devices and standards will be driven up as they look at what each other do. A thousand flowers will bloom and by some organic and almost ecological process, all will turn out well,” to which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says, forcefully, and with every rhetorical device and all the expertise at his command, which is a great deal, “It won’t work. You need the benign hand on the tiller of central Government.” He is wise enough to know that the hand must not be applied heavily, but his position is that we need the hand and for it to be applied lightly—we cannot simply devolve.

That is the difference between the approaches of those two very experienced parliamentarians, both of whom are very knowledgeable in their fields. It will be the big difference at the next election, as has been illustrated by these tiny—

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I knew I would not get away without letting the hon. Lady in.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

It is interesting for the hon. Gentleman to pose those diametrically opposed philosophical positions, but I am sure that the electorate will cast its mind back to the track record of the previous Conservative Government, and find that they probably did not take exactly the approach he described. They might actually have engaged in a small amount of centralisation of local authorities. Does he agree that we should take with quite a large pinch of salt his portrayal of the positions of his party and the Labour party?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I am willing to throw a pinch of salt over my shoulder if the hon. Lady will throw a pinch of salt over hers and concede that the Liberal Democrats have never been in government, so they do not have to take such decisions. We cannot automatically assume that, had they been, they would not also have been tempted occasionally to tread the primrose path to the hell of centralisation, so she ought to have a little care. However, whether she thinks that such positions are those of the two main parties or not, they are the opposites in the debate. Naturally, we keep to our position and intend to press our amendment to the vote.

Clause 32

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

This is a significant clause. Those members of the Committee who do not possess any special expertise in Welsh affairs—of whom I have to confess I am one—may be tempted to let it slip by without debate. However, it is significant and it gives rise to some questions.

The Minister has not risen to speak, so I shall say a word or two about what the clause seems to do. It sets out a series of framework powers which would extend the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly by inserting some new matters in field 12—the powers that councils in Wales are allowed to exercise. As the briefing from the Assembly says:

“The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill is an opportunity for the Assembly Government to seek framework powers that will enable it to bring forward proposals for legislation in respect of governance and overview and scrutiny.”

After all, as the brief also says:

“The Welsh Assembly Government can only go so far within the existing legislative framework.”

So, new powers mean new competencies. The brief sets out what those are:

“In effect, the Welsh Assembly Government wishes the Assembly to have legislative competence in the areas covered by the provisions of Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. This Act introduced different models for executive arrangements, including the Mayor, Cabinet and Leader and Cabinet models. The executive became responsible for most local authority functions, working within a policy framework set by the full council. The 2000 Act also brought about the creation of overview and scrutiny committees”—

which we have just been considering—

“made up of non-executive (‘backbench’) councillors, to scrutinise the work of the executive as well as reviewing policy within and without the council itself as they affected the local area. This legislative competence would enable the Welsh Government to give effect to its policies in this area following consideration of the Beecham Review and the outcome of research commissioned into the role and function of elected members in Welsh local government.”

I think the key question that arises from this, which this Committee ought to consider, and certainly should have an interest in, is what powers the Welsh Assembly Government, or WAG—not to be confused with other WAGs—wish to exercise. I should therefore like to ask some questions about the intentions of the Assembly Government, given—and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this—that a Welsh Assembly Government Minister came to brief the House informally on Tuesday on the measures that they wish to pass if the clause is enacted. I am not aware—and I have checked with the other Opposition party and I believe that it also is not aware—of any briefing for this Committee. Will the Minister outline how the process between the Assembly Government and this Parliament is supposed to function and explain why—if I am correct, and I accept that I may have been misinformed—no one from this Committee was made aware of the briefing.

Apparently, the Welsh Assembly Government, the WAG, wish to enact certain powers. They wish to establish

“joint scrutiny committees between neighbouring authorities”,

a matter we have just been considering. Can the Minister confirm that these committees will be made up of elected members only? The Welsh Assembly Government wants to enable co-option of “representatives from third parties” to these scrutiny committees. It looks as if they will not be made up of elected members only, so I may have answered my own question. How does this equate with the principle of accountability, if these rights are handed over to people who are not accountable to anyone? The Welsh Assembly Government have also said that they wish to introduce “a duty to scrutinise” across “the whole public sector”. Would the Minister say more about what that means? Could they, for example, summon any Minister to appear before a local government committee? If so, is there a case to argue that the power has been drawn rather widely?

The Welsh Assembly Government would apparently like to abolish whipping in scrutiny committees, although how that will be achieved is not clear. Perhaps the Minister could provide an explanation. Could the Minister explain what the Welsh Assembly Government intend to do with such powers? If they are devolved in relation to the proposed redesign of political structures, will local councils be, in some way, forced to adopt structures set by the Welsh Assembly Government?

Then there is a desire of the Welsh Assembly Government that is hard to understand. They wish to strengthen

“the role of the citizen through councillor calls for action, by which local communities can combine with their local councillor to ensure a matter is addressed by the local authority”.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification, and, if she cannot do any of that instantaneously, or if the necessary inspiration does not reach her quickly enough, perhaps she will be able to write. We look forward with interest to hearing what she has to say.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I will certainly ask the Welsh Assembly Government to write to the hon. Gentleman. I personally have not met any of their members. I understand that a briefing on a framework power was held on Tuesday 9 June at 3 pm, and that it was publicised to hon. Members when most of us would have been preparing for our afternoon sitting. I can only apologise for that. The policy will be subject to consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. We intend to give them the powers to decide their decision-making regime. As he will know, we have specifically excluded from the Bill anything in respect of direct elections to executives of county and county borough councils in Wales or the creation of a form of executive requiring direct elections. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him with the information that he requires.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

On the basis of what the Minister has said, we would be minded at this stage to let the clause pass. We may wish to return to it on Report.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will certainly ensure that full information is available before we reach that point.

Clause 52

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

It might have helped the Committee if the official Opposition had made it clear at the start of the previous chapter of the Bill that we regarded it as relatively uncontentious. We take the same view of the local government boundary and electoral change parts of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I echo those comments. The previous chapter that has just been accepted mainly applies the same standards implemented under the Companies Acts to local authorities. It is entirely sensible for there to be that mirror. This part of the Bill seems largely uncontroversial and sensible. Speaking as an MP who represents an area that has been covered by local government reform and has been undergoing the boundary-making process, I think that the proposals contain sensible amendments. I do not think that they would have resolved all the problems that we experienced in Cornwall, but they address some of the issues and are a big step forward towards a process that will be more timely and will give people confidence in the electoral process. We broadly welcome many of the proposals.

Clause 57

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Amalgamation of one or more local authorities—

‘(1) One or more principal councils may request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to advise, no later than a date specified in the request, on proposals for the amalgamation of the relevant principal councils.

(2) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England shall provide the advice requested.

(3) Where they provide that advice, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must also do any of the following that they think appropriate—

(a) recommend that the Secretary of State implements the proposal without modification;

(b) recommend that he does not implement it.

(4) Any principal council submitting a proposal for amalgamation must if requested by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by such date as they may specify with any information that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England may reasonably require in connection with its functions under this Clause.

(5) If the Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommends the proposal without modification the Secretary of State may—

(a) by order implement the proposal, with or without modification; or

(b) decide to take no action.

(6) The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (5)(a) implement a proposal unless he has consulted the following about the proposal—

(a) every authority affected by the proposal (except the authority or authorities which made it); and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Unlike many of the clauses being considered this afternoon, new clause 4 concerns a request to the Local Government Boundary Commission to advise on proposals for the amalgamation of relevant principal councils. The request does not flow from the Secretary of State, but comes up from the bottom, the councils themselves, which is why we thought that it was worth tabling the new clause. It is a relatively simple measure, and I commend it to the Committee.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

We welcome the transfer of functions relating to boundary changes from the Electoral Commission’s boundary committee to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Those are two different jobs and it is important that they are separated. New clause 4 is self-explanatory, and we wish to see a bottom-up process. We welcome variety in local government, and acknowledge that some places will have different set-ups that will be more appropriate for them than others would be. It is important that any review of the boundaries of local government, or any amalgamation of authorities, should be driven by what people want on the ground, rather than by a centralised process. If the new clause is aimed at achieving that, we will be happy to support it.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Committee, but I will be brief. I wish to emphasise that the new clause also stands in my name. I draw that to the Committee’s attention because I represent a constituency that has just gone through a transition from a two-tier structure to a unitary tier.

In the process of allocating the new unitary ward boundaries, in one part of my constituency we found ourselves in the extraordinary position of not having a single advocate for a particular two-member division that had been proposed. The proposal appeared from nowhere and was imposed by the Electoral Commission on the communities of Church Stretton and Craven Arms in my constituency. It is one of the relatively few two-member wards in my constituency, and within the county. Those two communities have very little in common. They are united by the A49, which is the only Highways Agency trunk road that passes through the constituency. They are seven miles apart.

The community of Church Stretton nestles in the Switzerland of Shropshire. For those of you who do not know that area, it is as it is described. It has some magnificent hills, which are famous for providing the best views between there and the Urals. Travelling eastwards, one cannot get as good a view as one can from the top of the Long Mynd until one hits the Urals. Yet just to its south, in Craven Arms, nestling on the edge of the area of outstanding natural beauty, people do not benefit from quite such spectacular views, beautiful and attractive as the place is, and there is relatively little that unites the two separate towns. Each has its own town infrastructure, yet they have been lumped together in a single ward. That caused intense frustration at every level in the community, including among those wishing to stand for election to the town councils in the respective areas, as well as a couple of the villages that were lumped in with them.

I have been going on at some length and you have been very indulgent in allowing me do so, Mr. Illsley. However, that example lends emphasis and support to the purpose of the new clause: that if areas are going through the fundamental change of a reorganisation of structure, the views of the people on the ground should carry rather more weight than the views of the bureaucratic organisation many miles away, probably in London, seeking to impose some sort of arithmetic calculation to the considerable distress of the local people affected by it. So I encourage the Minister to consider accepting the new clause when she sums up.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

The Chairman has been a little bit indulgent because he recalls doing his geography A-level field course in Church Stretton. He rises simply to explain to the Committee that we are debating new clause 4 with clause 57 because the new clause fits into that part of the Bill. We will not take a vote on new clause 4 until we take votes on the new clauses.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

The Government broadly support the principles behind the new clause. We agree that it is right that it should be open to local authorities to initiate reviews of their boundaries and, if they consider it appropriate, mergers with neighbouring councils. However, we legislated for such a process in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Section 8 of the 2007 Act, as amended by the Bill to include reference to the new Boundary Commission, enables any local authority to make a request to the Boundary Commission to conduct a boundary review. Such a review can consider altering local government boundaries, and abolishing or creating local government areas. It therefore provides a mechanism for principal councils to request a review to consider whether two or more local authorities should be amalgamated. The 2007 Act also enables a review to be instigated by a request from the Secretary of State, or on the initiative of the boundary committee.

Clause 57 provides that those functions of the boundary committee will be transferred to the new Local Government Boundary Commission. The new clause is unnecessary as there is already provision to enable councils to make requests for such reviews. In addition, the 2007 Act sets out statutory criteria which the Boundary Commission will have to have regard to when considering any boundary change. These are the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Those are important requirements when any boundary change is being considered.

Section 9 of the 2007 Act provides that, where the Boundary Commission is undertaking a review of local government areas, it must consult the councils of those areas under review and other local authorities, parish councils, or other persons it believes to have an interest. Those could include, for example, local authorities, MPs and police authorities. Section 10 of the 2007 Act allows the Secretary of State to implement, by order, recommendations made by the boundary committee with or without modification. Such an order would be subject to the approval of both Houses. We believe that the statutory process that currently exists provides statutory criteria and a full review process and meets the objectives that the hon. Member for Wycombe has sought to achieve through this clause. I hope that, in the knowledge that the provision already exists, he will withdraw the new clause when we reach that stage.

Clause 66

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 66, page 49, line 13, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

To address amendment 60 I must say a word or two in introduction to part 4 of the Bill, since neither Minister has risen to her feet to do so. We are now approaching the heart of the Bill. The clause on local authority economic assessment will provide space for many of the arguments that you have already heard, Mr. Illsley, I am afraid, in relation to other parts of the Bill, in particular about the first three sets of duties.

What members of the Committee see before them is a proposal that a

“principal local authority in England must”—

note, “must”—

“prepare an assessment of the economic conditions of its area.”

In subsection (2) it may revise the assessment

“or any part of it...at any time”.

That provision was introduced presumably in case subsection (1) proves in practice to be even more inflexible than the clause looks as a whole.

Let us pause for a moment and look at the whole business of economic assessment. Obviously, any reasonably sized local authority worth its salt will have an eye to the economic conditions of its area. In our area, Wycombe district council, which is one of the larger district councils in England, has all sorts of data available to it about the economic conditions in the area as a whole and in the Thames valley—the information is easily accessible—and it makes assessments of the information that is in front of it. However, the first question that the clause and its first two subsections give rise to is, as ever, why that has to be on the statute book. We have asked the question so many times that I shall not repeat it at length. However, I will ask a variant of it. Why is it that Ministers believe that it is important to put an economic assessment—only—on the statute book?

Any local council worth its salt, such as Wycombe district council, does not only prepare economic statistics; it also prepares social, housing and education statistics and assessments. If one burrows through my local council’s website, one can find child poverty statistics. As it is a feature of this clause, I am curious to know why so much stress is placed on economic assessments of the workings of the economy and the issue of prosperity only. Far be it from any member of the Conservative party to take a view that seems sceptical of business—we are not doing that at all—but it is curious that the Government have not thought fit to put a social, environmental or sustainability assessment in the Bill, given that they have thought fit to include an economic assessment.

There are always questions about the balance between growth and the environment, between standard of living and quality of life and how the two interact. The Minister will be aware that Opposition parties have received representations arguing that in this Bill the Government have become over-focused on growth. When the Bill was drawn up, I do not know whether anyone anticipated the promotion of Lord Mandelson to First Secretary of State and his Department’s subsequent swallowing-up of whole other areas of Government, but there seems to be a case for arguing that the Government have put their eggs very strongly in the basket of economic, rather than other forms of assessment. That is a curiosity.

That is the background. If hon. Members cast their eye down the clause, they will see multiple instances of the word “must”—I have highlighted the word five times in my copy, and the clause even starts with a “must”—hence amendment 60. It is an amendment, Mr. Illsley, of a type with which you will be familiar. A moment ago I said that we have no objection to a local authority carrying out economic assessments—how could we? If this clause must be on the statute book, we would prefer to take “must” out and insert the word “may”.

I obviously cannot speak to the amendment that was tabled by a Member who was going to be on the Committee, but no longer is; perhaps the Whips got him and bound him in a dark cupboard.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Or a lift.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Indeed. Amendment 60, as ever, seeks to tone down the element of compulsion in this clause by inserting “may” instead of “must”. That would allow local authorities the freedom to conduct economic local area assessments if they so wish. Yet again, we cannot see why it is necessary to include such a restrictive term in the statute book.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

On local authority economic assessments, in part 4 of the Bill, it is understandable that during difficult economic times the priority of the Government and local authorities is to focus on understanding the nature of the problem and how it may best be resolved. I share some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe, in particular the reason for framing this measure as a requirement on all local authorities. Most local authorities already have a sustainability strategy, and one would hope that some information might inform that. I wonder to what extent this provision will underline work that already takes place.

The key thing about assessments is that they should inform future actions; councils should not be allowed simply to tick a box stating that they have done one. My concern is about the next stage in the process. If the Government think that the economic assessment is important, surely the next stage is just as important, but the Bill does not really contain anything about that.

I also have some concerns—the Conservatives’ amendments highlight these—about the idea that economic assessments must stick rigidly to the boundaries of a local authority, even thought they might bear no relation to the boundaries of economic experience. Some principal authorities might find that their economic circumstances are very similar to those of a neighbouring authority, but within local authorities there might be very different circumstances. It might be difficult to reflect that in a single assessment. For example, I imagine that the economic assessment of the council of the Isles of Scilly would be very similar to that of west Cornwall, but the clause would make it impossible for the council to produce a joint economic assessment with west Cornwall. It requires the whole of Cornwall to conduct one assessment and the Isles of Scilly to conduct another. There is a danger of both duplication and of missing out some of the variations within a local authority, because the clause is so prescriptive in focusing on an economic assessment across a single local authority area.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The hon. Lady is making a strong point. Does she agree that the prescriptive nature of the clause does not take into account the relationship that many local authorities have with urban regeneration companies and other regeneration partnerships? A prescriptive requirement on authorities to prepare such assessments could result in duplication, if an assessment has already been prepared, perhaps on an agency or collaborative basis with an urban regeneration company, for instance.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

That is one example of the danger of duplication. Of course, however, that information might also help to inform a principal authority’s assessment. The clause lacks flexibility. The assumption is that the boundaries in place already will be the same as those of economic experience. No doubt we will have a similar discussion on part 5, dealing with regional strategy. Just as there might not be one economic experience in a principal authority, it will be difficult to conduct one economic assessment for a single region with several different economies. I am pre-empting a discussion that we will no doubt have on later clauses.

I am concerned about the lack of flexibility, including in the consideration of what will have an economic influence. My attention is drawn to our experiences in Cornwall with objective 1 funding. The history books show that the primary problem for Cornwall when we tried to qualify for objective 1 funding was that the previous boundaries lumped Devon and Cornwall together as an economic entity. That meant that, despite the fact that one falls of an economic cliff when crossing the Tamar bridge, the poverty in Cornwall was not recognised. As much as anything else, addressing those issues necessitated the realisation that the boundaries were inadequate. After that, consideration had to be given to what those funds were put towards. Although the objective was an improvement in Cornwall’s economy, much of the resource has been invested in education, infrastructure and all kinds of different things. A narrow interpretation of an economic assessment might exclude many of those considerations.

So we have three broad concerns. First, the interpretation of what might impact on a local area’s economy is too narrow. Secondly, nothing is said about what actions the strategy should inform. Thirdly, there is not enough flexibility to allow the assessment to reflect how the economy is functioning. It is not right to assume that every local authority will have its own economy—that is clearly not going to be the case. Some authorities might require more than one economic assessment; others might be better off working jointly with neighbouring authorities.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I want to follow the hon. Lady by referring to my neck of the woods, as she has to hers. North Yorkshire has a wide range of authorities—a county council, a unitary council in the shape of York itself, eight district councils and two national parks—and it spreads almost coast to coast, from Bridlington, Whitby down to Hull. The concerns are clear. One crosses the plain of York, hits the Pennine range and goes towards the little bit of England that is left over, which is called Lancashire. We have Cumbria at the top left hand corner. It is practically a continent in itself. From the Pennines one can see a long way further than the Urals. [Interruption.] One can almost see Bradford.

If it is intended that the assessment should be county-wide, how does one bring it together? The area includes Bentham, which is in a sense dependent on Lancashire—it looks towards Lancaster and that part of Lancashire—and, insofar as people commute, they tend to go north or north-west. It also embraces the major population centre of York, a unitary council, and has a series of scattered districts. It has coastal areas with particular economic needs, dependent on not very high quality tourism. [Interruption.] I mean that in terms of how much people spend there; there are many day-trippers. The tourism in my constituency is not very high in that many people do not spend much money. We do not take as much money off them as we would like because they come as hikers and cyclists. [Interruption.] If the Minister looked at the speech I gave in the House a couple of weeks ago on the problems facing my constituency due to the sheer incompetence of the Learning and Skills Council and the threats to Craven college, she would understand how important it is to diversify the economy. The present tourist base needs to offer more and better, in order to attract a wider range of tourists and, quite frankly, take more money off them. That is the important point I am making.

First, in such a diverse area how does one draw up an economic plan or report with any real meaning? It is so diverse in character. There are, of course, similarities but there are some specific needs: agriculture, small-scale tourism—I should say, rather than poor quality—and small-scale manufacturing. With the exception of one or two big outfits such as the Skipton Building Society, it has relatively small-scale business. Secondly, how narrowly do we define the term “economic”? Do we introduce elements of sustainability? We are supposed to marry sustainability into all our ways of looking at the economy nowadays. In that case, how do we deal with acute issues—not in my constituency, I am delighted to say, praise the Lord—such as the proposal for a large incinerator? If anybody wishes to see popular democracy in action, they have only to propose that someone put an incinerator or houses anywhere near. Houses and incinerators have a particular capacity to get the entire population enraged, at least in England. In Denmark people seem to think that both of them are good ideas—one is used to heat the other. In England, however, we seem to take an entirely different view. [Interruption.] In case my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe had any doubts about the direction of the economic inputs, it is the incinerator that is used to heat the house.

How wide does that assessment go? Does it take in issues such as skills? The real problem in North Yorkshire is not that the education quality is not good; it ought to be good given the sociology of such an area. The level of skills, however, is often not very high. One needs to be able to enhance that, which is why issues such as the future of the further education colleges are crucial in the regeneration programmes of North Yorkshire.

Thirdly, the hon. Lady mentioned an important issue: the correct geometry of the economic report. Regarding North Yorkshire, one could almost say that there is a part of what used to be North Riding that in many ways still looks north for its services. At Masham in my constituency for example, the hospital is at Northallerton, and beyond that the specialist hospitals tend to be those in Middlesbrough, on Teesside. The old West Riding of Yorkshire, which includes Ripon, which is next door to Masham, and Craven, tends to look down towards Leeds. In one of the Government’s projects, the city region—which I support—the Leeds city region includes the district councils of Craven, Harrogate and Selby. We have already seen projects run on a city region basis, and the sensible unit for economic planning is those metropolitan areas, and the travel-to-work areas that depend on them. In many ways that is a more real economic unit than North Yorkshire. One could equally—[Interruption.] The Minister shrugs her shoulders and says that it is not, but I am a supporter of a city region area, and it is. She will have her turn in a minute. I would defer to her on the affairs of Doncaster and South Yorkshire, which as far as I am concerned is almost on the M25, and I ask her to defer to my knowledge of North Yorkshire on these matters. In the north part of the county, there is a great deal of logic in a unit that is based more towards Teesside, a large part of which used to be regarded as part of Yorkshire.

How do these things fit together? How do we ensure that in producing an assessment on a county-wide basis we are not getting in the way of, multiplying, or having too much overlap with, assessments that might relate to more natural units? At the moment, the travel-to-work area is one of the most classic economic units for assessment right across the industrial world. I would not want to lump together artificially areas that have a natural affinity but in a geographical and sociological sense. In an economic sense, those areas do not look towards each other but towards other parts. If one takes Craven in my constituency, which is essentially—

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about city regions. The Government’s agenda has been to focus all kinds of policy and activity on a city region and it would make sense if the clause reflected that. However, what the clause could also do, if it were framed in that broader way, would be to allow a more rural alternative to the city regions to develop. At the moment, we have clear policy for city regions and a complete absence of policy for everything outside them.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The real criticism is that the Government have produced the idea of city regions but have not yet intellectually thought it through effectively. Yorkshire Forward, our regional development agency, will be responsible for a large area, and we will have a new body dealing with learning and skills issues, neither of which body is congruent with the city region, which is one of the two trial areas. Manchester and Leeds are the two trial city region areas. The Government need to be more consistent in thinking it through. If they intend to construct city regions and other bodies, perhaps they need to deconstruct, or we will have too many competing authorities and jurisdictions.

It may simply be that, inevitably, all wording in the Bill is a sort of shorthand and that the Minister will be able to explain it, but at the moment, I am concerned that we are doing something that appears on the surface to be eminently sensible but that is not as obviously practical when one looks a bit below the surface. I would like her reassurance on that matter.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise briefly because the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has made some interesting points, and I want to give the obverse perspective from London. Before I do so, though, I say to him that I will not be goaded by his reference, which he made knowing full well that I spent four happy days as a tourist in his area between Christmas and the new year, and I do not consider myself low-value tourism, but I will let it pass.

London, the principal authority defined in the legislation, is a London borough council. London has a Greater London authority, which has economic development powers created by the Greater London Authority Acts. Those powers are vested in the Mayor and the GLA. It is not clear from the legislation how far the London boroughs, in framing the individual economic assessment for their area, should take account of the wider perspective set by the London economic development strategy produced by the Mayor and the London Development Agency.

Clearly, that is a different position from that of authorities in other parts of the country who have no regional authorities to relate to, so there is a specific issue with London. I am not clear how the legislation is expected to work and how the potential for conflict will be avoided between the city-wide authority, which has economic development responsibilities, and the strategy developed by the individual London borough. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. At the moment, particularly in the current economic downturn, all public authorities—particularly local government, which I know as regional Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber—are thinking clearly about their effect as authorities that spend a lot of money in an area, have a key role in employing up to thousands of people and whose policies can make a difference to local businesses. Placing a duty on them to make an economic assessment is vital for not only the present, but the future in terms of thinking about how they consider the particular circumstances of their area. What can they do as local authorities to support local businesses? What can they do to support local people in acquiring skills, getting training and attracting inward investment? At the moment, they occasionally play a vital role in supporting businesses and individuals who might be in particular difficulty. What we are doing in the Bill is an absolute fit with much of the current economic thinking on the role of national, regional and local government.

I will deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I am quite shocked. She is, again, simply going along with Conservative Front-Bench assertions, which boil down to “Let’s not do anything. Let’s just allow the recession to take its course.” They do not believe that there is any role for intervention in the economy. That is why they have opposed what we have done at national and regional levels. Frankly, I am surprised that she is falling for that trick. That exposes the paucity of Liberal Democrat thought when it comes to implementing real policies that will help local people, including in her region.

The Opposition’s policy is to oppose and abolish regional development agencies. The economics suggest that about 5 million people are needed in an area for an effective regional strategy to be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich took the Bill that established regional development agencies through the legislative process. That legislation was built on a clear body of evidence on what was needed to stimulate the economy at regional level, and I think that regional development agencies have been extremely effective.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I assure the Minister that my views are based on facts and the experiences related to me by my constituents on the ground, rather than on the legislation before us, which is sometimes used by the Government as a proxy for action. She is about to defend regional development agencies as the drivers of economic change. I will give an example of the reason why I have defended the ability of councils to decide for themselves what is best. This week, the South West of England Regional Development Agency decided to cut back on £50 million-worth of projects, a large proportion of which would have had an impact in my constituency. There is no accountability for that. Regional development agencies are failing to do even what the Government say they are doing.

The Minister should be careful in what she says because everybody in this room is advocating the changes that they think will have the biggest impact on the ground. We all have a duty to consider all the evidence, not just what is put forward selectively in the Bill.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Actually, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. The evidence shows that for every pound invested by regional development agencies, the growth back is about £4.50. If she looks at how many jobs have been created, she will see that regional development agencies have played a real role. It is a bit rich for her to say that RDAs are unaccountable when she will not participate in the Select Committees that scrutinise their work.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Will the Minister give way?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. We are not going to have another debate on Regional Select Committees. We must come back to the amendment.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised an interesting point about what view the North Yorkshire councils would take of the kind of duty we are discussing. As the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, I have had a number of meetings with the leaders of those councils. I think that they would be pretty horrified by the idea that tourism in their area is of a poor quality. I think that those involved in “Welcome to Yorkshire” would be quite upset to hear that tourism in Yorkshire is considered to be substandard, or whatever the words were.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I do not want to again get into a 30 years war, as the French would call it. Yorkshire must ensure that its tourism is more diverse and has a greater range. The problem is that a large volume of the people who come stay in bed and breakfasts and the take is relatively small. That is why we need much better winter facilities and a wider offer: we want to take more money off the individual tourist. That is what I am talking about. If the Minister looks at the regeneration strategy based on Skipton, she will find that I am practically quoting it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The right hon. Gentleman would, I hope, acknowledge that the £30 million invested by Yorkshire Forward in “Welcome to Yorkshire” is having a huge effect on tourism. It is a good example of how such regional intervention can help to stimulate one of the key industries in our area at a very difficult time.

Tourism is worth something like £6 billion to the Yorkshire and Humber region and employs about 250,000 people. We are trying to stimulate it through regional action. However, council leaders in North Yorkshire have been anxious to ensure that when there is an economic focus, through, for example, the city regions, they can put together an economic case for their area as well. Areas such as Scarborough and Bridlington have been what we call “renaissance towns” in terms of investment from Yorkshire Forward to ensure that we are getting high-quality tourism. The worry for councils is that it is important that they have their “economic stamp” on the plans, as well as the economic plans put forward through the city region pilots.

There has been a lot of support from councils of all political hues in the fight for Leeds city region to become one of the pilots. That has been welcomed. Taking an overview of Yorkshire and the Humber, it is exactly the type of action that councils are supporting. They want to play a role in economic development, but feel that consistency is needed.

The problem with the Conservative amendment is that it actually says. “You can do it if you want to.” The whole point of getting councils together and emphasising economic development is to ensure that they make the assessment needed to get consistency that can be fed into the overall strategy on the regional approach to stimulating the economy. That fit needs to be put together to ensure that councils, which can have a huge effect on their local economies, think clearly about what they need to do to support local businesses, support people to get jobs and help new company start-ups. I am surprised that the Opposition feel that it is better to sit back and think, “Fingers crossed, let’s hope something happens.”

Several hon. Membersrose—

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I give way to the hon. Member for Peterborough.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

It is a shame that the Minister is having recourse to a tub-thumping political attack. Her argument is predicated on preparing an assessment being the same as taking action, but we have seen over the past six months that they are not the same. In fact, she is cogently making the same argument as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. She is giving many examples of the diversity and plurality of local authorities’ actions to benefit their local areas economically, socially and demographically. The clause is not needed if those things are already happening.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about what local authorities are saying. They want notice to be taken of their local economic assessment. The provision is a way to build it into the everyday business of local authorities. That is hugely important to local people.

The hon. Gentleman talked about being over-focused on growth, but I do not think that we should deride a focus on growth. It is incredibly important that we focus on how we can stimulate the local authorities and others to help people through these difficult times, but beyond that we should think about the future, when the economic downturn is over. What will local areas look like, what skills will they need, which industries will they want to attract into their area and which will they need to help? Those questions are encompassed by introducing the duty for local authorities. I am certain that if Opposition Members talked a little more to their local councillors, they would get the same message, which is about the role that they feel they can play now to help local people.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I can see that, both at local level and from central Government’s perspective, it is necessary to see how all the different economic experiences fit together to inform Government policy, but does the Minister not understand that if central Government dictate the shape and size of those jigsaw pieces, it undermines their ability to understand what is going on the ground? We need a bottom-up process to give central Government the best understanding of what is going on, rather than a top-down one.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That is exactly why we give local authorities the ability to join together through local area agreements if they wish. Some local authorities may say that in some instances it is right to widen the area covered, but in others, because of the employing power, the businesses in a particular local authority, colleges, schools and so on, there will be a very clear fit within the boundaries of the local authority. However, if there is desire to join together—for example, through local area agreements—we have said that it is for local authorities to come forward. There is flexibility within that, but within the Bill there is obviously a clear duty on the principal local authorities to do that.

In terms of the counties and the relationship between the counties and the districts, when drawing up any economic assessment the counties will have to consult with the districts. If the districts wish to draw up their own economic assessments, they can do so, but again that gives the flexibility to achieve what feels right within individual areas. That is an important caveat that perhaps has not been entirely clear. That perhaps addresses some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. Many districts within that North Yorkshire area will want to make their needs clear, especially some of those coastal areas and seaside towns.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am sure the right hon. Lady understands that nobody is suggesting that local authorities are not enthusiastic about trying to address the economic needs of their areas—of course they need to recognise the different needs. One thing she said is very important: the measure is not intended to be too prescriptive. My concern is not that I do not want people to take action; I simply do not want them to find themselves in a framework in which arrows are pointing in different directions. Given the importance of a sub-regional strategy, if we are now going to produce an over-layer of a county strategy, which is not inconsistent with the provision, I do not want there to be a huge problem in marrying both strategies together. In that sense, I am reassured. I discuss all this with my county councillors all the time, of course, and I will certainly discuss it with the 50-odd Conservative members, the 20-odd Liberal members and the Labour member of North Yorkshire county council.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As have I. I have found quite a lot of support for the idea of involving local authorities in stimulating their economies. On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the GLA strategy, I assure him that the guidance will stress the need for boroughs to take account of mayoral strategies and vice versa.

It is important that the duty is enshrined in local authority duties. The duty is vital, now and for the future, to support local people and businesses, and it has the right amount of flexibility to ensure that, if local authorities want to join together over a wider area, they are entirely free to do so, if that is what is felt to work best locally. I hope that my arguments have absolutely persuaded the Opposition to withdraw their amendment and that they recognise the importance of the action that we are taking.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

The Committee has had a wide-ranging debate in which we have considered whether the assessment of economic conditions is too narrow and whether such assessments should be more widely drawn. We did not say that it is not important to do that at a time of recession any more than the Minister said that it is not important to assess sustainability. The Committee has also considered whether the economic areas referred to in the clause are too narrowly drawn. We have been given two small tours by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who raised the point, which my right hon. Friend summed up very well, about arrows pointing in different directions, and how the duty will interact with other local authority duties or assessments that are carried out in other forms.

The Minister’s response seemed to show very little confidence in the Bill’s content. I have not served opposite her for long and I do not know her modus operandi well, but she clearly feels much happier in her comfort zone attacking the Opposition for apparently doing nothing while the Government do everything, which is reflected in their successful results in the current polls. I could reply in a similar vein. We could have a little bit of party political knockabout and consider whether it is the Opposition or the Government who are doing better out of their respective political approaches at present.

That would be an interesting debate, but it is more relevant to state that, owing to her splendid piece of knockabout and her wielding of an enormous cudgel in the direction of Falmouth and Camborne, I am not actually sure whether the Minister has properly read the amendment or the clause. She has painted a picture of the clause as a vital part of a strategy that, to quote her, “feeds into” regional strategies, so that the direction of movement is clearly upwards. We understand her approach, but the clause does not state that at all. As someone pointed out during the debate—I think it was the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne—it only states that they “must prepare an assessment.” It does not say that they have to do anything with it, nor does it say that it must be fed up into the great regional strategy, of which the Minister is so proud. I am not sure that she has read her own legislation—she is just much happier doing the traditional Labour thing of seeing how well it will serve them at the polls.

Finally, we on this side of the Committee do not propose to do nothing. All we are doing is proposing to delete the prescriptive word “must”—it leads nowhere, because all it does is compel the local authority to create a strategy without putting anything else on the face of the Bill—and insert the word “may”, which will allow local authorities the freedom and the flexibility to carry out the assessments for themselves. That is the clear divide in the Committee, and we intend to press our amendment to a vote.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 66, page 49, line 19, leave out ‘, other than a non-unitary district council’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 62, in clause 66, page 49, line 27, leave out from ‘council’ to end of line 28 and insert

‘it shall act in partnership with the district council or district councils for that area in discharging its functions under this section.’.

Amendment 63, in clause 66, page 49, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

In effect, we have just considered the first part of the clause. We ought, for a moment, to consider further aspects of the economic assessment, which will stand alone as a result of the clause. If members of the Committee turn their eyes to subsection (6), they will see, to their surprise, that

“A principal local authority must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State—

(a) as to what an assessment under this section should contain and how it should be prepared;”.

There is a considerable role for the Secretary of State here, as other paragraphs of the subsection make clear. If Members turn the page, they will see that before giving the guidance

“the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

It is an entirely circular process invented in the latter part of the clause, which is why we sensibly propose to leave it out. The first amendment seeks to explore that, and no doubt the Minister will tell us why non-unitary district councils should be excluded—she may well have a persuasive argument to put forward.

Amendment 62 seeks to stress partnership. We have been here many times before. We have heard the approach from the Government side and from those on the Opposition Benches. As I have said, we have this economic assessment, which stands alone, and there are no further means on the statute book of putting the measure into effect, which seems odd—although not as odd as putting it on the statute book without those means in the first place. We look forward to hearing what other members of the Committee have to say.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We have already outlined many of the ways in which this section will work and the need for county councils to consult district councils in drawing up an economic assessment. As we have said, there is nothing to stop district councils doing their own assessment, if they wish to. However, I find it a bit odd that, to a certain extent, the Opposition are saying, “You’re making everybody do this assessment,” but then say, “Well, actually we want more people to do the assessment than is currently required under the Bill.”

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

We are not saying that at all. We are simply trying to establish the Minister’s rationale for forcing the other councils to do things she does not seem to want to force district councils to do.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We have already talked about the need for an economic assessment to take place. I addressed that when replying to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about what happens in an area such as North Yorkshire where, to a certain extent, in terms of the economic assessment, there is an anxiety that if all the economic focus is around the Leeds city region, some of the more rural areas in that part of North Yorkshire will not have the same amount of attention focused on them. That is exactly why there is a duty at county council level to do so, which I believe is welcomed by those authorities. However, there is also the ability to consult, first of all, the district councils. If the district councils wish to make their own economic assessment, there is absolutely no problem with their doing so. I am finding it curious that, on the one hand, the Opposition say that they do not think that the duty should exist, but on the other hand, they want to put the duty on more councils. That is why I am a little puzzled.

We are also discussing amendment 63. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Wycombe addressed amendment 63 in his opening remarks.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

When the Minister reads Hansard tomorrow, she will find that, in fact, the first part of my remarks was on subsections (6) and (7).

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I understand that amendment 63 takes away the requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Again, the issue here is that on the one hand, the Opposition want us to be more specific about exactly what the economic assessment will need to take into account, but on the other hand, they seem to want local authorities not to take any notice of that. I cannot quite marry those two positions up.

We wish to consult local authority bodies and others about the detail of the economic assessment and provide helpful guidance on how to draw it up. However, it is important that there is a certain level of consistency about that, so we wish to issue guidance and oppose the Opposition amendment.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Tomorrow, every member of the Committee will peruse the Hansard report of the debate—we know that no member can get enough of the proceedings—and see that the Minister clearly was not listening to my remarks when I moved the amendment, because I opened by referring to subsections (6) and (7).

On her point about guidance, it is perfectly true that we wish to give local authorities the freedom not to follow the guidance, but as I said in my introductory remarks, we would also remove from the Secretary of State the requirement to consult representatives of local government before the guidance is issued, thus saving everyone the circular process the Minister has invented and put in the Bill. She seems to have given us no reason not to press the amendment.

I heard what the Minister said in relation to amendment 61, which we tabled in a probing spirit. Were it possible for us to withdraw that amendment, but put the other two to the vote, which is at your discretion, Mr. Illsley, that is ideally what we would do.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Can I be clear about what the Minister said? She said that there would be guidance, but if that guidance is to embrace all the circumstances that prevail across England with regard to economic needs, it seems to me that that has to be either prescriptive, in which case it should not be done, or so flexible as to embrace every single circumstance, in which case I cannot see the point of having the guidance at all. Surely the sensible thing to do is let the units producing the guidance determine their priorities. I am sure that she will find that the danger of having some form of framework is that people will feel obliged to tick boxes that might not be relevant in their circumstances, which is bothersome.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I do not accept that. It is important that we can, for example, refer to the need to ensure that a local community’s skills are adequate for getting jobs in local businesses or to look at the requirements with which local businesses themselves come forward. There are some good examples of the work done through skills boards in assessing local economic needs, ensuring local education is geared towards meeting those needs and, looking to the future, determining whether businesses are saying that they feel investment or skills training is needed and how that fits into an overall strategy. That must be done through consultation with organisations by local authorities. It does not have to be overly prescriptive, but it needs to set out some general areas that local authorities might wish to take into account when drawing up an economic assessment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows the type of areas that are likely to be covered, but it is important that we work with local authority organisations to get their views on what will be most helpful in guidance and on what the parameters from central Government and regional government should be, which would also be helpful.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I simply remark that it seems inconceivable that any quarter-witted council would produce an economic strategy that did not take into consideration the skills needs of local business.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Does the hon. Member for Wycombe wish to rise and withdraw amendment 61?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 66, page 50, line 8, at end insert—

‘( ) When conducting an assessment under this Part, a principal local authority must consider the impact on the social, environmental and economic well-being of the authority’s area, including where applicable (but not limited to) the effect on ports, caused by non-domestic rating revaluations.’.

This takes us back to the start of the debate, so I will be brief. One of the questions that we considered at the start was whether the assessment should go wider than the economy and take into account other factors, which is what this amendment states.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I am sympathetic with what the amendment tries to achieve, but I do not know whether it is necessary, given what the clause already sets out. Clearly, port authorities are a very important aspect of the local economy. However, given what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has said about any council with half a brain doing certain things, I think that any council that is taking any process such as this seriously, regardless of whether or not it is required to do so, would consider the impact on its port authority, if it had one within its area. I am not entirely sure whether the amendment is necessary or whether the hon. Gentleman will want to press it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I will match the commendable brevity of the hon. Member for Wycombe by saying that the amendment is not appropriate. Such matters, which should be addressed in local economic assessments, should not be placed in the Bill, because it would unnecessarily constrain local authorities and make it more difficult to us to respond to changing economic priorities in the future. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I have been so brief, the Minister has been so brief and everyone has been so brief that I do not think that we can press this matter to a vote. However, this is a matter to which we may return at a later stage.