Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in

clause 32, page 14, line 21, leave out 'require' and insert 'ask'.

It is a real pleasure, Mr. Conway, to see you back in your place. Like us, you are full of enthusiasm.

Subsection (2) states:

''A Minister of the Crown may in connection with that section''—

that is clause 31, which is about the power to pay grant—

''require a local authority to formulate policies in relation to any matter.''

The amendment is about democracy; it is about whether or not local authorities should be free to spend the moneys that they receive from local and national taxpayers.

The Government tell us—we shall doubtless debate the matter in detail on the Floor of the House—that they want to reduce ring-fencing. They want to ensure that local authorities receive their grants and revenue from the local taxpayer and use the money as flexibly as possible. The reason for the amendment is that I believe that the Government have made a drafting error. I think that they meant to ''ask'' not ''require'' local authorities, because the latter goes against the Government's rhetoric and their policies. It is bizarre that the Government should ''require'' local authorities to formulate policies in exactly the manner that the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues want; I would have expected a Government who talk about local democracy to do the reverse of that.

I expect an early treat today. I expect the Minister to say that he believes in local democracy. I hope that he will say, ''The hon. Gentleman is right; we meant 'ask'. We do not require local government to do exactly what we say in every aspect of their policies, and we will accept amendment No. 85.''

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

There is indeed something sinister about the wording of subsection (2). I wonder whether the Minister would explain the distinction—if there is one—between requiring a local authority to formulate policies on a particular matter and determining what those policies are. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is

such a distinction. Otherwise, there is little point in placing a duty on the local authority to formulate policy if the Minister is going to do it himself.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Good morning, Mr. Conway. I apologise for being a minute or two late. Perhaps we should ask the House of Commons cleaners not to occupy the lifts at 6 minutes to 9 in the morning. I may not have the running power of Seb Coe, but I assure the Committee that it took me approximately a minute and a half to get here from my office on the fourth floor of Portcullis House.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) makes a good point with amendment No. 85. The ancillary power contained in subsection (2) could be particularly onerous. The Minister should explain it in context. Although the Government are always giving local authorities new duties, they do not often finance them—and even when they do finance them, they do not finance them in full. Added to the duties that the Government, through the Secretary of State, impose on local authorities, are the new duties that will be imposed by whatever type of regional bodies—God forbid—that emerge. There are huge powers under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill for the regional planning body to require local authorities to carry out a vast range of duties, for most of which they will not be reimbursed. This is a sensible amendment, as the clause as drafted could be very onerous. It will also be difficult for the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise properly what is being requested of each local authority. The Minister will be more familiar than I with the fact that it is not just financial transactions that the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office scrutinise; they also scrutinise best value for money. They have a role in scrutinising whether Government instructions to local authorities are reasonable. If the Minister is reasonable, he will accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

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

The Minister is reasonable, but he will not accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I was disappointed by the hon. Gentleman. We heard the usual rhetoric from him and from the Liberal Democrats about democracy and devolution and all the rest. He actually accused us of making a drafting error when moving his amendment. I must say to him that the drafting error was made in his amendment. Why have the Liberal Democrats been so timid? Why are the Tories behind the times? Of course, we know about the hon. Member for Cotswold and his encounter with the cleaners. In both cases, the Opposition have not recognised that there was a good intention behind this subsection: to ensure that we have the necessary information when we are making grants to a local authority.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Does the Minister accept that I had a good intention to be here on time?

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

I know that the hon. Member for Cotswold always has a good intention; it is simply his misfortune to have joined an outfit that is constantly

accident-prone. The purpose of subsection (2) is to assist in the provision of information to enable the Government to pay grants to local authorities. On reflection, we believe that there is no need for that subsection at all, and on Report I intend to table an amendment to delete it entirely. I hope that the Committee will approve that and understand why I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I had expected the Minister, because he is such a reasonable chap, to give us an early victory; I did not, however, anticipate such a huge retreat. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) asks whether it is the Minister's birthday. It is neither his birthday, we had that last week, nor is it mine. The Minister has made a very wise and sensible decision, and he will gain plaudits from both sides of the Committee for it, and from local government throughout the country. It augurs well for the morning's proceedings. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.