Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in

clause 23, page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

The amendment is designed to test whether my Machiavellian mind is too inventive.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

It is.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister says that there is no plot—no cunning plan. Well, we shall see.

The amendment relates to the different bodies that can become precepting or money-raising bodies. They are listed under clause 23(1)(a) to (o). The problem, as always, is that paragraph (o), rather than just making a list, is a catch-all provision. It refers to

''any other body specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations under subsection (2).''

My Machiavellian mind wonders whether in future that may include regional bodies. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance on that.

Under subsection (3), those as yet unspecified bodies, which might include regional bodies, may by regulations become precepting bodies. That gives rise to the possibility that regional bodies will introduce a regional council tax—the policy so loved by the Liberal Democrat party. One wonders exactly what the Government have in mind for those regulations.

Amendment No. 105 would leave out subsection (3), so that it was not possible to make additional regulations as to which bodies could increase their precepting powers and for what purpose—[Interruption.]

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. I do not know why, but afternoon Committees, regardless of the Bill that they are considering, are always slightly noisier than morning Committees. Perhaps that is because of the length of the day, but if hon. Members want to have

protracted conversations with one another, they might withdraw to the Corridor, rather than conducting them in the Room.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I suspect that the proximity of the time when we can go home is causing hon. Members to become a little excited and to concentrate on matters outside the strict limits of what we are supposed to be considering.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

There is a long way to go before that.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

As my hon. Friend suggests, we do not know whether we shall finish at 5 o'clock, but we shall explore those dark alleys in due course. No doubt the Government and the usual channels will keep the matter close to their heart until we get nearer the time. The Government Whip is nodding. I am happy to keep members of the Committee here until midnight on a Thursday night. No doubt his Back-Bench colleagues would be as annoyed with him as the Ministers would be, but I would be happy to be here at midnight debating these matters.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

On your own.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would have something to say about it if he were left on his own, but I would not mind in the slightest. The Government Whip might have something to say to my hon. Friend afterwards.

The amendment is perfectly straightforward. It is a probing amendment to elicit from the Minister—both Ministers are dealing with the Bill most helpfully—what is intended with subsection (1)(o) and what the Government have in mind as regards regulations under subsection (3).

Mrs Valerie Davey (Bristol West, Labour)

I, too, hope that the Government will enlighten us about the bodies that they have in mind, why they felt that they needed the power in subsection (3) and whether any of the bodies that might come under subsection (1)(o) might not be accountable to local or, indeed, regional citizens. I am concerned because there are some quangos in the list of bodies—for example, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority. I could talk about that at length, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Conway. As it is threatening Kingston magistrates court, it is not an authority that is dear to my heart at the moment.

As a result of that experience, which I am sure other hon. Members have had, I am concerned as to whether the Government have any intention, under the regulatory powers, to give levying powers to bodies that are not accountable to the electorate. We would have huge concerns about that. If a body has tax-levying powers, it must be held to account. Some of our concerns would be assuaged if the Minister could give us an assurance on that.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Sadly, I fear that the effect of the Committee so far has been to prompt suspicions about the Government's motives on the part of the Opposition parties. We have frequently heard allegations of a control-freak tendency and about centralisation. On looking through a copy of one of

the weekly municipal magazines some days ago, I was reflecting on how—[Interruption.] I have to disappoint the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry): I enjoy his column, but that was not the one that took my fancy. In fact, the column that took my fancy was ''In the Past'', which records what happened 50 and 100 years ago. Those hon. Members who feel that we are currently living in a period of repressive centralisation—in contrast with the past when local government had great freedom—should be aware of an interesting observation from January 1953. Local authorities were at that time informed by the relevant local authority journal, I forget which one—I shall not say which, in case I offend the other—that they had

''been advised to apply before February 21 for licences to erect some types of flag poles for Queen Elizabeth's Coronation.

The Ministry of materials have stated that enough homegrown flag poles should be available, but have added that government licences are needed for homegrown softwood poles, which are more than 3in in butt diameter.''

Compared with that paradise of freedom in the 1950s, the Bill will substantially extend freedoms for local authorities.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Remember, it was in the time of a Conservative Government.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I remember that there was a little doubt after the 1997 election about whether regulations had been issued that required flag poles to have planning permission—the Government hastily decided that they did not.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman's experience in the Standing Committee dealing with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will undoubtedly put him in a strong position to advise us on this issue. I will not go in to that territory.

The hon. Gentleman raised some suspicions about the use to which we might put the powers in the clause. I assure him that its purpose is entirely sensible and wholly innocent and I hope that when I have explained it, he will be satisfied. The clause determines which bodies are to be defined as local authorities for the purposes of part 1. The list in clause 23(1) is basically the same as that for the present capital finance system. Under clause 23(2) we would have power by regulations to add to that list, but we could add only bodies that fall within the categories that are specified, namely, levying and precepting bodies. That is the first important safeguard.

Draft regulation 22 was published for the Committee's convenience and hon. Members can see that it sets out our proposals and our initial intentions on using the regulation-making power. We propose to add the national parks authorities, the Broads authority and the Lee Valley regional park authority. Those authorities are all covered by the present capital finance system, but we have a special reason for not simply including them in the basic list in clause 23(1), linked with clause 23(3), which the amendment would remove. Subsection (3) enables us to apply the legislation in a modified form when bringing bodies into the system by regulations. The kinds of bodies in

question might be structured differently from the mainstream local authorities that are listed in subsection (1).

Before any of those less typical bodies were given full access to the freedoms of the prudential borrowing system, we must be satisfied that they can cope properly with the new responsibility of setting and monitoring an affordable borrowing limit. The power of subsection (3) would enable any additional safeguards to be introduced, if necessary. In some cases, for example, we may need to vary the requirements for the affordable borrowing limit to be set by the full council, which is the effect of Government amendments Nos. 11 to 24. They would adapt that duty to take account of the unique nature of the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. It is conceivable that modifications of that duty, or of a different aspect of the system, would be needed for other authorities with special characteristics. I think that I am right in saying that the Lee Valley regional park authority does not have a full council, in which case one could not require the affordable borrowing limit to be set by the full council.

We will be considering whether such measures are necessary for the bodies named in draft regulation 22. They may not be, in which case those bodies will be subject to exactly the same regime as authorities named in subsection (1). However, the power could be required for some other body that we may, in future, want to bring within the capital borrowing system. The amendment would take away that flexibility, which could work to the disadvantage of bodies with an untypical structure, possibly denying them access to the system altogether.

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I hope that in light of that explanation the hon. Gentleman, to whom I will of course give way, will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister has given a plausible explanation, which no doubt is entirely correct, of the necessity for the clause. Will he therefore take the opportunity categorically to deny that it is in the Government's mind that any regional bodies are likely to be named under the clause and that they will have precepting powers?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

It is not in our plan that regional authorities should be treated in that way, but I would not want to rule it out. [Hon. Members: ''Ah.''] I say that for the obvious reason that if it was felt that a framework for extending the borrowing regime to regional authorities, if they were set up, was appropriate, that might be the most practical way of going about it, so we certainly would not want to fetter our discretion. However, that is not the purpose of the clause. It is constituted in this way for precisely the reasons that I have specified. The examples that I have given—the Broads authority, the Lee Valley regional park authority and the national park authorities—are the bodies that we have in mind at this initial stage.

Mrs Valerie Davey (Bristol West, Labour)

The Minister has listed those authorities as examples, but they are not ones with which I am terribly familiar. How accountable are those authorities to the people in their area? Are they

directly, or indirectly, elected? How will the people on whom, I presume, the levy may fall, hold the authorities to account?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I, like the hon. Gentleman, am not a total expert because the London borough of Greenwich, like the London borough of Kingston, does not contain the Broads or any national parks, although there are very nice parks in our respective boroughs. The Lee valley, although it comes closer to Greenwich than it does to Kingston, does not extend across the River Thames into Greenwich.

I am not totally conversant with those bodies, but I understand that they are constituted to look after the specific needs of their areas. Obviously, national parks have areas of outstanding natural beauty and recreation; the Broads have similar characteristics; and the Lee valley is an important recreational area for London, which may, depending on any decisions about an Olympic bid, have an important role in the future development of leisure activities in London. I understand also that those bodies contain representatives of relevant local authorities and local interests, but they have a much narrower focus than normal local authorities, which have a range of responsibilities.

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I am not sure whether there is a national park in the Cotswolds, but I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

No, we do not have a national park in the Cotswolds; we hope that we will never get one, but we fear that we may. We have a perfectly reasonable planning regime in the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty which serves the people and the area well, whereas the south downs has had a new national park imposed on it, which it is not particularly happy about it. Will the Minister confirm that the clause is providing a new precepting power for the broads and national parks and, if so, are the people living in those areas about to have a new stealth tax imposed on them?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

No. The hon. Gentleman is clearly in paranoia gulch this afternoon. There is no question of new precepting powers. Those bodies are currently precepting bodies, and those particular clauses and regulations are designed to make the appropriate arrangements in relation to the new capital finance rules.

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman making disparaging remarks about national parks—they are greatly loved and much appreciated by the people in the areas where they exist. I am aware that some local councillors take a different point of view, but my experience of national parks elsewhere, and the representations that I have received about national parks, show that there is considerable popular support for them and for their objective of ensuring both the proper protection of the countryside and access to the countryside for leisure purposes by people who otherwise would not have those opportunities.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

The Minister may be correct that national parks are a good thing, but the legislation creating them is now 50 years old, and therefore may be wholly inappropriate to particular areas. With regard to the proposed New Forest national park, the statutory criteria for laying down the boundaries will give rise to a national park that is too small to be sustained. It would be better if new legislation were to be devised.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I rather regret entering this territory, because I shall probably be ruled out of order if I respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. His question does not relate to the potential borrowing facility for a national park authority, which is the only reason for the issue falling within our remit.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) rose—

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman who has, I believe, a national park on his constituency border.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I have a national park in the heart of my constituency. I also have a large area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency. When the Minister mentioned that national parks were areas of outstanding natural beauty, he was eliding two separate categories.

The national parks are greatly loved, but largely by the people who live outside them. Those who live inside them often have to cope with some pettifogging rules, particularly on planning and development. There is a perennial argument about whether development and economic development should be one of the fundamental purposes of the national parks. That is not the case at present.

The Minister is welcome to visit my national park. If he does, I will ensure that he encounters a range of opinion, not all of which will be quite so ecstatic as he has just adumbrated.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. We are all enjoying wandering around the trails of national parks, but we need to return to the amendment under discussion. This is not a clause stand part debate.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. I shall immediately retreat from national parks to the principle behind the amendment, which is to remove the flexibility to allow additional specific bodies without the same structure or purpose as a local authority to become a beneficiary of the capital finance regime. That is a sensible provision, for the reasons that I outlined earlier. I suggest that the hon. Member for Cotswold withdraws the amendment.

Mr. Turner rose—

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I shall give way briefly to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, an area that is not yet, as far as I know, a national park.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It is not, but none the less the Minister would be welcome to visit the island. Will the Minister explain whether the power could be used in conjunction with the powers in clause 19 to enable parish and town councils to take advantage of the provisions of the chapter?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Yes. As I understand it, parish councils would be eligible in certain cases, if we were to reach a view that it was appropriate for the capital finance regime to apply to parish councils. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the earlier discussion, we do not believe that that is appropriate, and that is why separate arrangements were made for parish councils. However, if certain quality parishes, or best-value parishes, were to expand their role significantly, and if it were felt in future that what has been proposed was appropriate, my understanding is that the provisions would make that possible. On that note, I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

National parks come within the scope of this clause. Before every hon. Member whose constituency contains a national park writes to me, I want to put on record that I do not dislike national parks. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has rightly mentioned some of the problems faced by people who have to live and work in national parks and who have to abide by their regulations.

Mr David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion, Labour/Co-operative)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification. However, he commented earlier on the proposed south downs national park. Is he on record as saying that the Conservative party is opposed to the establishment of that national park?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

No, I am not on record as saying that. What I said—I hope that Hansard will clarify what I said—was that many people who live in that huge area are extremely worried about the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has raised. Some of the stronger regulations—which can sometimes be imposed with a pretty heavy hand—can be difficult for people who live and work and run businesses within national parks. That point is well worth making. By and large, those who will administer the new national park will be indirectly elected, not directly elected. Power is being taken away from local authorities, which have directly elected members on national park authorities. There is therefore a democratic deficit in national parks.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to put on record, unequivocally, that I am opposed to the New Forest national park as currently proposed.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I think that we have wandered the trails and paths of national parks enough. It is clearly on the record that they are not universally admired, but that, in general, the concept is good.

I am not at all convinced that the Minister will not use this clause to specify regional bodies with precepting and borrowing powers. The Government love such regional bodies, and I cannot see how they would be able to function without those powers. This clause is the Trojan horse by which the Government will introduce them.

We have explored this matter fully and there is no point in encouraging my colleagues to vote for the

amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.