Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I have spotted an opportunity, and I hope that you will forgive me for attempting to exploit it, Mr. Conway. I am certain that I am in order. If I am not, I know that you will rescue me. You were in the Chair at our previous sitting. I have just been looking through the Hansard report of our discussion on clause 31. I know that it was 5.30 pm and that it had been a long day, but I seriously wonder whether we, as a Committee, were not all asleep. There was little discussion on the enormous powers granted under clause 31, nor was there a vote on clause stand part. However, clause 35 defines the local authorities to which those powers can now legitimately be applied. I refer to the enormous power under clause 31, which states:

''The amount of a grant under this section and the manner of its payment are to be such as the Minister of the Crown concerned may determine . . . A grant under this section may be paid on such conditions as the Minister of the Crown concerned may determine.''

What is there to prevent the authorities listed under clause 35 from receiving a grant under the powers under clause 31 that is outwith what would usually be understood as the vires of their proper authority? I know that it is absurd to suggest it, but what is to prevent a Minister from making a grant under subsection (1)(l) to

''a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme''

to run libraries? I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has never considered such a thing. Under the powers granted under clause 31, what prevents such action from taking place? Obviously, we cannot determine what may motivate future Governments who may want to ride roughshod over certain parts of local government. I fear that we may have already sold the pass, but at least we have the opportunity to recognise that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West started the debate on the clause, because many other clauses are covered by the same interpretation of a local authority. Used in conjunction with other clauses, it enables the Secretary of State to pay to a local authority of his choice a grant amounting to 100 per cent. of that local authority's expenditure. If he decided, for example, to be particularly beneficent to the Isle of Wight council—

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

Which he has been.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I acknowledge that. I did not cite that example at random but because I wanted the opportunity to thank the Minister for responding to the all-party delegation of councillors that I led.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Has that not gone to the very heart of the problem that will be exacerbated in future because of the huge discretion given to the Minister? He might be munificent to my hon. Friend's constituency, but he certainly has not been munificent to mine. The caprice that we have delivered into the hands of the Minister through the powers granted by the clauses fills me with dread.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) replies to the intervention made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West, I remind the Committee that whether or not it is believed that members of the Committee were asleep during our previous sitting, clause 31 was debated and stands part of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will not be tempted to reopen the debate on clause 31 when he replies but will stay with clause 35, which we are now debating.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

No, indeed, or yes, indeed, as the case may be, Mr. Conway.

I shall not attempt to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West because he has not benefited from the Minister's munificence in the way that my local authority has. It is great to be able to describe the pleasure that was expressed by councillors of all parties on the Isle of Wight council yesterday when they heard that instead of getting an additional grant for next year of 3.9 per cent., which would have allowed a 6 per cent. increase in spending, we shall get a 5.9 per cent. additional grant next year. That makes it difficult for the Liberal Democrats, who lead the council, to explain why they were talking about imposing an 18 per cent. council tax increase. [Interruption.] Yes, having cake and eating it is exactly how the Liberal Democrats are behaving because they say that the increase still has to be nearly 18 per cent.

I shall make a point that is more within order, although you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Conway. It is the interpretation of a clause that matters, not the wording of it. The interpretation of clause 31 provided by clause 35 is that the Minister, or any future Minister, could give a grant to a local authority of 100 per cent. of its expenditure to allow it to set a nil council tax. Several Labour Members are chuntering in the background, but perhaps the Minister has a perfectly good explanation that will show that the definitions in the clause would prevent him from paying a 100 per cent. grant to a local authority. If that is the case, any opposition I might have to the clause standing part will become null and void and unnecessary. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's explanation.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I fear that I need to reopen a further argument that we had during consideration of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill: whether the list of authorities needs to, and should, include unitary authorities and whether there has been an error in the drafting, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said earlier. As there is still confusion, we should spend a few minutes examining the matter because the list appears in many other clauses in the Bill, which I shall adduce in a minute or two.

The list in clause 4(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill reads:

''a county council; . . . a metropolitan district council; . . . a district council for an area for which there is no county council; . . . a National Park authority.''

On 14 January 2003 in Standing Committee G, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said:

''On a more specific point, the definitive list of unitary authorities includes county councils, metropolitan district councils and district councils for an area in which there are no county councils—that is it.''

He was more definitive still at column 120. He said, in his usual bullish way:

''There is no such term as 'unitary authority' in primary legislation. To add unitary authority as an additional definition would be irrelevant, because it is not a recognised concept in primary legislation; it is merely a device used by the local government boundary commission and others to determine what an authority does.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 January 2003; c. 113, 120.]

Unfortunately, the Minister had to eat humble pie. In a letter to me dated 28 January 2003, which was headed ''Unitary Authorities'', he wrote:

''I would like to clarify my comment last week on whether other primary legislation uses the words 'unitary authority'. My officials at the time thought that the term was not used elsewhere in primary legislation. But after checking the point it transpires that in fact that there are some references. I am advised that the term is used in other primary legislation, for example, section 8 of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, section 7 of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, section 16 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 and section 144 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.''

We need to get the matter cleared up. We clearly have unitary authorities. They are recognised, stand-alone authorities. I accept that they have the powers of both

county and district councils, but they are a different type of authority.

I had a quick look through the Bill late last night and discovered similar lists of authorities in clauses 23, 35, 40, 41and 61. Indeed, clause 61 on business improvement districts, refers to unitary county councils, whatever they might be.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I shall finish the list before giving way to my hon. Friend.

Clause 61 refers to unitary county councils, and clauses 99, 103 and 114 have similar lists of authorities. That may not be the entire list of clauses, but I suspect that the entire Bill, including its complicated schedules, is not entirely consistent in the lists that it gives. I wonder also whether such legislation should use the words unitary authority.

I happily give way to my hon. Friend. In doing so, I congratulate him on the financial settlement that he has secured for his authority. It is well deserved, not least because, on every occasion, my hon. Friend raises the problems of his constituency. He is an assiduous MP, and he deserves that success.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. In the circumstances, it seems almost churlish to intervene. I simply wanted to point out that Isle of Wight is a unitary authority, which is defined as a county council. That is identified by the fact that the elections for that authority are held at the held at the same time as county council elections.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am not sure whether that intervention was helpful; it may have made the Minister's case for him. I think I shall ignore it. I shall have a word with my hon. Friend afterwards and ask him to think twice before he seeks to intervene again.

The list may not be exhaustive, and that confusion may apply in other clauses and schedules. There may be an inconsistency. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but it is clearly not the last time that such lists will appear. Assuming that we ever get that far, we shall soon need a boundary commission recommendation for unitary authorities across the entire country of England prior to referendums being held on elected regional assemblies. God forbid that we ever get that far, but if that is what is in the Government's mind, the problem will clearly become ever more acute.

I shall listen to the Minister with interest. Perhaps he will be able to clear up the confusion left by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

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

Clause 35 is simply the list of local authorities to which grants may be paid under the power given in clause 31. As has been observed, we debated the powers to give grants at an earlier stage, so I shall not say much in response to the issues raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West because it might be out of order. However, there is no question of grants made under powers in this part of the Bill being used as an alternative to the formula grant that

we have just announced, which will be debated in the House tomorrow and which is the main mechanism for the distribution of grants to local government. It is governed by a formula that provides a safeguard against the kinds of anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expressed.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Is the Minister telling me that that simply cannot be done, or that it simply will not be done?

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

It will not be done, because there is an alternative mechanism—the formula grant system—for distributing the main grant to local government. That applies to all local authorities and a Minister who chose to ignore that and who wanted to pass money by means of another route would almost certainly be open to challenge. I can assure him that that will not be done. The formula pertains to additional grants for specific purposes, a wide range of which we covered when we debated clause 31. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that and that it puts his fears to rest.

I enjoyed the hon. Member for Isle of Wight's description of the issue—the formula grant—and of the all-party representations that his local authority made. I was pleased to respond to the clear evidence, which related to a technical issue, about whether the Isle of Wight should be treated as a separate area for the area cost adjustment. Despite the fact that the Isle of Wight is designated as a county council—a fact the hon. Gentleman rightly raised and which the hon. Member for Cotswold was less pleased to hear—we felt that it would be wrong to treat it as a separate unit, because of its size and because of the potential weakness of the sample in that context. That is why we have agreed with the point that he raised.

The hon. Gentleman said that it could be possible that funds might be used to cushion the council tax. It is unwise for Opposition Members to raise such an issue, given the highly publicised treatment of one or two central London councils by the previous Conservative Government in the 1980s and 1990s. I will, however, pass over that matter.

While the promenade by the hon. Member for Cotswold through some obscure legislative byways, including the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, was entertaining, the reality was highlighted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The term ''unitary council'' can be used—it certainly is used in some contexts—to cover both county and district councils that have assumed the full unitary powers. We do not, therefore, consider that changes need to be made to the framework in the clause, which lists all local authorities, including county and district councils.

There is scope for misunderstanding, because the word ''unitary'' is often understood to refer to authorities, including the London boroughs and metropolitan authorities, that are responsible for all local government services in their areas. For the sake of precision, we do not use the word ''unitary'', but refer instead to bodies such as county, borough, district or London borough councils, that are perhaps more readily understood.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Let me try once again. There is scope for confusion. The term ''unitary authority'' is generally taken to refer to the full powers of a merged borough or district council and a county council, which takes on all the functions of both, such as planning and waste disposal. Waste disposal policy might be the responsibility of a county council, whereas planning could be a district council's responsibility. The two functions would be merged, as the Government propose in their White Paper ''Your region, Your Choice'', and it would be understood that that usually referred to a unitary authority. However, the Minister confuses the issue by saying that in some instances a unitary county council, for example, the Isle of Wight, could be called a unitary authority. As I understand it, the term could also apply to a unitary metropolitan district council, which would cause further confusion. This matter must be cleared up. We should be very clear about the terms that we use. There is confusion, the Government must address the matter and the term ''unitary authority'' should be included in the Bill.

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

There is no confusion. Anyone who reads the provision that contains the list will be well aware of the authorities that are eligible to receive grant. The introduction of the term unitary might allow a degree of confusion for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman identified. That is why we are not using it in the clause; we are listing the authorities so that there can be no confusion as to which are eligible to receive grants.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

At the risk of being out of order, but it is pertinent to the debate, will the Minister to turn to clause 61, where he will see the term unitary county councils? There is an inconsistency in the Bill. In some instances, those are mentioned and in others they are not. That cannot be the right way to go about making primary legislation.

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

That is not the case at all. The purpose of the clause is to define the authorities that are eligible to receive grants under clause 31. There is no ambiguity or confusion. Every authority that is listed is eligible to receive a grant. In different contexts, there might be references to unitary county councils or to other unitary authorities. The term unitary can embrace a range of different bodies and can be subject to different interpretations. That is why we do not use it in the case of clause 35, which needs to be precise—as the hon. Gentleman will recognise—in defining the authorities that are eligible to receive grants. When we come to clause 61, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will explain why it is appropriate to have a reference to unitary county councils in that context. However, it is a different context and there is no scope for confusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.