Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in

clause 14, page 6, line 19, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 65, in

clause 14, page 6, line 19, at end add

'and may charge the Secretary of State for the cost of providing that information.'.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to detain the Committee for too long on this group, but hon. Members may like to consult clause 14. It is very short—possibly the shortest clause in the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to demand that a local authority supply him with information on a time scale set down by him. There are no ifs or buts; it is a clear new power and the Minister can demand such information almost irrespective of the cost or difficulty that it might impose on a local authority.

Our amendments Nos. 64 and 65 attempt not to get rid of the power but to curtail it a little. Amendment No. 64 seeks to add the word ''reasonably'', so that the Secretary of State ''may reasonably request''. I hope that the Minister will agree with it; I am sure that he would not want unreasonably to request information from a local authority. It is a slight protection for local authorities so that the Minister—not this Minister, but a future Minister—may not suddenly wake up one day and decide to ask every single council in the country to provide a huge amount of information by the following week. We want to guard against such possibilities.

Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the time scale would be determined by the Minister. That does not appear to be in the Bill, so will the hon. Gentleman explain how he draws that conclusion from the clause?

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I may have misread the clause, but I was referring to the words ''at such time'' in line 18. I was concerned about it and tabled amendment No. 64 because the clause would place an onerous potential burden on local authority officers if they could go into the office one day and find a fax or an e-mail from Whitehall saying that it wanted all the information by tomorrow. I do not suggest that that is what the Minister will do, but the provision seems odd as it goes

in the opposite direction to the Government's new regime, which will take regulations and reporting duties from local authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 64.

The hon. Gentleman will probably not accept amendment No. 65, which would allow local authorities to charge the Secretary of State for the cost of providing the information. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that providing information comes at the cost of office time directed from other things, such as providing and managing front-line services. If the Government are to ask for even more information from local authorities than they already have, they need to be reminded of the cost.

Local authorities want amendment No. 65 and if the Minister accepts it I shall be delighted. It would put a little control on Ministers' whims in wanting to find out everything that goes on in a local authority. I hope that the Minister understands the spirit in which the amendments were tabled and I am optimistic that he might agree to amendment No. 64.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. For the avoidance of doubt, I explain to the Committee that I have not been present so far because I have been leading for the Opposition on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill Committee. We did not manage to persuade the Government to accept any of our amendments, including the correction of spelling mistakes, and I hope we will do better in this Committee. I look forward to debating matters with both Ministers and with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in a spirit of co-operation.

I start by declaring that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and have various property interests outlined in the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us about the Government's spelling?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The odd words ''complusory'' and ''satinsfactory'' appeared in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The Minister would not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment because he could not be sure that there were not other spelling mistakes. He had to send his team away to examine the whole Bill in detail to ensure that all the spelling mistakes had been spotted.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Order. This line of inquiry about another Bill has been pursued far enough. I am sure that members of the Committee will want to take copies of the Bill back to their rooms this afternoon and check the spelling mistakes.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

It would be entirely consistent with the Liberal Democrats to be in favour of different spelling in different parts of the Bill. [Laughter.]

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The point has been made. I have not come across any spelling mistakes so far in

this clause, but it is only three lines long. I am sure that there will be scope for that in the rest of the Bill.

I hope that, in the spirit in which he introduced them, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will not press the amendments to a vote. I am sure that they are only probing amendments, and it is pertinent to probe this point. As I understand it, if a court were asked to interpret the clause, the Minister would have to demonstrate that he was acting reasonably in any case, but it would be useful to have that on the record.

With regard to charging for the cost of providing the information, I hope that the Government will not accept that amendment. If the Secretary of State were charged for information, presumably he would want to charge the local authority when providing information. The bureaucratic mechanism whereby charging would be introduced would be an unnecessary burden on top of the cost to council tax payers.

I also want to ask the Liberal Democrats, tongue in cheek, how they would apply the mechanism where they were in control of district councils in England. They also have a controlling interest in the Scottish Parliament and a major interest in the Welsh Assembly. How would they react if the boot were on the other foot? No doubt the Liberal Democrats, who always face both ways at the same time, will have an answer to that question.

In the spirit of these probing amendments, let me say that this is a simple clause, and I hope that we can move on fairly quickly.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I, too, hope that we can move on fairly quickly. I welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold to his rightful place in the Committee. He has already served a useful purpose by demolishing the arguments on the amendments advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

I can confirm that the Government will act reasonably, as we always do, in respect of any request for information. If we did not, it would be open to challenge. It would not be right for councils to be able to charge the Secretary of State for the cost of providing information. That would not only be bureaucratic, but would not make sense, not least because the Government do not charge local authorities when they request information. In addition, there would be no limit on the charge by the local authority.

I imagine that if a local authority wants a grant or other support from central Government, it will reasonably want to supply the relevant information, such as data on pupil numbers and normal formula grant reviews. If it did not provide that data, it would be hard to see how it could receive any grant, so the amendment simply makes no sense.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

Even given the spirit in which I moved the amendment, I think that the Under-Secretary is going slightly over the top. For the record, will he ensure that when his Department makes requests of local authorities, it is mindful of the costs that it imposes on them in making those requests?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I not only confirm that, but go further by saying that we are already, through some of the extra freedoms and flexibilities that we have announced, relieving a significant burden on local authorities by reducing the number of submissions that they are required to make to central Government. I am not just saying that; it is already happening in practice. The clause is reasonable, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold. I have served on Committees with him before and it has always been a pleasure.

These are indeed probing amendments and they have been useful, because the Minister has said on the record that the Government will not make requests unreasonably, but that if they do, local authorities can challenge the requests. He has also said that the Government do not intend to use the power willy-nilly and that they will think about the costs that they impose on local authorities. It is good that we have got that on the record. We will hold the Government to account when they use the powers. If, over time, we see the powers being abused, the House may need to return to the matter. Through the usual channels and with local government, we will be watching. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.