Clause 79
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
2:43 pm

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 79, page 53, leave out line 4 and insert—

‘(i) an NHS Trust or a Foundation Trust either commissioning or providing services to residents of some or all of the area;’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in clause 79, page 53, line 4, at end insert—

‘( ) any individuals or groups of individuals or body, including any NHS organisation, providing general medical services’.

No. 65, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—

‘(m) NHS Foundation Trusts and Health Trusts;

(n) the Mayor of London;

(o) Transport for London.’.

No. 117, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—

‘(m) the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government;

(n) the Secretary of State for Education and Skills;

(o) the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry;

(p) the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

(q) the Secretary of State for the Home Department;

(r) registered social landlords;

(s) public utilities;

(t) the Royal Mail’.

No. 136, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—

‘(m) Regional Offender Managers,

(n) Probation Trusts and providers of probation services,

(o) Network Rail,

(p) the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships,

(q) the Forestry Commission,

(r) the National Forest Company,

(s) Regional Lottery Boards.’.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Benton. We now come to the meat of part 5, which will allow local councils to deliver the strong and prosperous communities that the Government, the official Opposition and my party want to see. Local area agreements and the extent to which they can bind in and integrate the activities of partners will ensure delivery. We support fully the concept of local area agreements and allowing local authorities working with their partners to set priorities for an area.

I shall not, however, use the phrase “place shape”. It is something that I cannot stomach; it is far too new Labour for me. It is also a phrase that the public may not necessarily understand. Setting priorities is what the provision and local area agreements are about. That will be achieved by local improvement targets which, for the purposes of this afternoon, I shall abbreviate to LIT—not to be confused with local income tax, a very good alternative to the council tax  system. However, although I might be tempted to engage the Government in a long debate about that alternative form of paying for local services, I understand that here is neither the time nor the place to do so.

The purpose of local improvement targets under the Bill is to improve economic, social or environmental well-being in a particular area. That will be achievable only when local authorities can undertake that role effectively, working with relevant partners. That is where the Bill is defective. It is appropriate to highlight some of the partners who will be missing from the table, unless the Government change the Bill.

That brings me to amendment No. 49 and NHS or foundation trusts. I accept the arguments put forward by the NHS Confederation that primary care trusts commission health services from NHS acute or foundation trusts, and that it will be the body that will hold those trusts to account for the services that they deliver. I disagree with the confederation’s view that, by including NHS or foundation trusts as a partner, it will create partnerships with no purpose. The confederation says that the key is to get the right people in the room.

There will be occasions when those from NHS and foundation trusts are the right people to get in the room. I am sorry to say that often the NHS partners are the most reluctant to get into the room. In the past few months, I have been conducting research among local authorities and know that one of the impacts of the financial pressures on NHS trusts means that they are scaling back their involvement and partnerships. They are not putting in the resources or the time to get people round the table, so it is a serious omission that NHS and foundation trusts are not included in the Bill.

Clearly, the PCTs can use their contracts and will do so to ensure that the NHS and foundation trusts deliver in respect of health, but what about other matters in which the local authority might want to engage a local NHS trust—a large employer and generator of traffic—as a partner around the table? Let us consider traffic congestion. St. Helier hospital in my constituency is a large employer; it generates lots of vehicle movement. The local authority has an interesting scheme under way at present to reduce people’s use of private cars and make them aware of public transport alternatives. To what extent will a primary care trust be able to negotiate with an acute trust about engaging it in the process of reducing traffic congestion in and around the borough? The answer is not at all.

All members of the Committee can think of other cases—whether skills or employment—when we might want to involve partners directly and for them to include NHS and foundation trusts. I shall listen with great interest to the reasons why such a provision has been omitted from the list, but it will require a convincing explanation for us not to pursue the matter if not today through a Division, but at a later stage.

Amendment No. 88, tabled by the official Opposition, is in the same ballpark in what it seeks to achieve—more effective engagement with NHS partners than currently exists. Amendment No. 65  touches on the NHS, but it also includes the Mayor and Transport for London.

On amendment No. 117, I am sure that the Minister agrees with the LGA that the success of local area agreements, as well as depending on partners such as the NHS whose engagement we want, depends on central Government’s willingness to play a full role. Surely central Government’s role should not be simply to approve LAAs, but to engage heavily in the process and to show that they are a willing partner. For instance, if a local improvement target will address social disorder and antisocial behaviour in an area, there are clearly circumstances in which the local authority will want the Home Office to be engaged in the process. A local authority seeking with its partners to introduce targets on climate change, particularly a local authority in a coastal area, will want to engage the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the process. For that reason, we have suggested in amendment No. 117 additional partners whom we believe should be around the table to discuss local area agreements and targets with local authorities and other partners.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

The list goes on and on, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps the Government, why educational establishments—for example, local schools and sixth-form colleges—have not been included, because they have an important impact on the nature of any area.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. If I concede one flaw in our amendments, and only one, it is that the moment a list is deployed, it is easy to identify other things that should have been included. He has a strong case, and he may want to consider tabling his own amendment to ensure that educational bodies are represented as partners, just as we are seeking to ensure that DEFRA, the Home Office and so on are included. The Government, Departments and regional offices need to be engaged in the process, which is what we want amendment No. 117 to achieve.

Amendment No. 136 could perhaps have been incorporated with No. 117. I am afraid that it is a further list of additional organisations that could be sought as partners around a table. I am not suggesting that all the partners should be present at each and every single meeting to define the local area agreement—this Room would not be sufficient for all of them, and I am sure that local council offices would struggle to provide the necessary tea and biscuits—but there will be cases in which they should be engaged.

I shall give a couple more examples in relation to amendment No. 136. I suspect that every hon. Member here who has part of the rail network running through their constituency has at some point torn out their hair about Network Rail’s lack of involvement in problems there. I shall draw attention to one particular issue. Let us take the London borough of Sutton as an example, and let us say that it launched an initiative to tidy up Wallington town centre. At the very heart of Wallington is Wallington station. Every single person who arrives in Wallington by train and who walks into the town centre, and every person who leaves the town centre to catch a train, must walk under a bridge  maintained by Network Rail. What they will see if they follow that particular route—many of my constituents, particularly those with children, now avoid it—is a large number of dead pigeons caught in a wire mesh. Many of my constituents will not walk that route with their children, because their children do not want to see dead pigeons, or pigeons on their way out, caught by the wire mesh.

Has it been possible to get Network Rail engaged in sorting out that problem over the past five years? Certainly not. The problem has nothing to do with Network Rail. It is Network Rail’s bridge, but it is not its problem. I do not know whose problem it is, but it is certainly not Network Rail’s. Clearly, we need the organisation to be engaged in the process. We will not improve our town centre—I think that this will be true of many town centres—until that particular problem is sorted out. I want to see Network Rail as a partner in this process.

Probation trusts, which the Government will introduce in the Offender Management Bill, appear to be another serious omission from the list. As the hon. Member for Bedford has said, there is a problem with identifying a whole series of organisations that one would seek to involve as partners, but there are some significant omissions that the Government should consider incorporating in the Bill. That opportunity does not come up very frequently. Therefore, rather than waiting for the Government to realise that the omission was more serious than they had anticipated, I hope that members of the Committee will agree that now is the right time to address the issue. That would give us a situation in which local authorities can deliver real local area agreements with real power and work effectively with all of the partners that need to be engaged in the process to make a real change to a local community—I am not going to use the phrase “place shape”—and to improve an area in a way in which local residents want. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. I hope that she can give a convincing explanation why so many significant partners have been omitted from the list.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. In my experience, local government and other organisations are always full of lawyers. Looking at the list, which is growing, one can see a lot more work for lawyers coming out of the Bill. Amendment No. 88 is in line with what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has said about the national health service. It might be appropriate for primary care trusts to be listed, but there are some very big hospitals in boroughs and council areas that also have a big impact. Even if one is not talking specifically about health issues, there is a load of related issues that might exercise a local council—for example, thousands of people working in a hospital might need housing and car-parking arrangements. Also, local buses are routed and timed to deal with patients and those who work in hospitals. Therefore, a whole range of issues could impact very heavily on the community. We feel that there should be a mechanism allowing authorities and boroughs to have more of an agreement and dialogue with those particular organisations.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has discussed Network Rail—I have some sympathy for  anyone who has Network Rail going through their constituency—I wondered about airports and ports. I have a port in my constituency in Poole. Heathrow has a pretty big impact on west London. The issues there include the possibility of extra terminals, where the traffic goes, who is travelling there and what impact that has. Some organisations on the list have less of an impact than very large airports, even small airports in rural areas can have a disproportionate effect on a particular community.

We want the Minister to justify why the organisations listed under paragraphs (a) to (i) are necessary, why other organisations are excluded and whether or not the Government are happy that the drafting of the Bill is right. It seems to me that we have a very extensive list, but there are some very big gaps that will make governance at a local level rather more difficult because the list excludes some very big players in local communities.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

First, I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole on clause 49. To give the Under-Secretary an illustration why “Primary Care Trust” might be an insufficiently broad descriptor of what she is trying to get at, in my constituency we are debating a situation where the primary provider of community health care is likely to become a not-for-profit trust, which will be outside the primary care trust’s direct management and control. If we are looking to involve the providers of medical services, the Liberal Democrat amendment helps to capture the thrust of what the Government are getting at, as does our amendment.

Secondly, picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on transport authorities, he may have a problem with dead pigeons in an urban area, but in a rural area we have problems with other forms of wildlife that affect the transport thoroughfares, particularly dead badgers, which may be receptacles for bovine tuberculosis.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

In urban areas, there is a problem with pheasants jamming the brakes on trains, so even in such areas wildlife is a big issue.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

I fully accept that wildlife affects urban areas as much as rural areas. Of course, the fox springs to mind as being as much of a pest in urban areas—often more so—than in rural areas, where it now lives free of its predator.

The Highways Agency should be included in the list, but it has not been mentioned yet in any amendment. If the Bill is trying to get to transport providers, will the Under-Secretary consider including the Highways Agency as well as Network Rail?

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton and Reddish, Labour)

I want to go into a bit more depth on a number of matters that have been touched on. I have much sympathy with adding to the list of partner authorities, because there is a danger that if we do not do so we will lose accountability and lose the involvement of some of the partners, not necessarily including the national organisations and quangos as part of the local area agreement. However, there is a danger of producing an   almost endless list. If it is not going to be done in that way, we need a mechanism in place to bring other organisations and bodies formally into the process.

Over the past few decades, a plethora of organisations, although not necessarily the national organisations and quangos, have been involved at the local level. Thinking locally, many local authorities have moved towards care home trusts, sports trusts and housing action trusts—building companies that have taken over the responsibilities of the former direct service organisations—and so on. The list is almost as endless as the one in respect of the other suggestions. There is a danger that if we do not involve more formally some of those organisations, we will end up with a loophole further down the line.

The bodies that I have referred to are often solely funded by local authorities and often provide a service solely on behalf of the local authority—quite frequently in buildings still owned by it—yet legally and constitutionally they are completely separate from local authorities and are not, for example, covered by a range of regulations that would apply to them were the relevant services still offered in-house. We will possibly debate that in more detail when discussing chapter 2 and the enhanced scrutiny and the access to information from partner authorities. Chapter 2 and clause 49 are linked, because the former states that the partner authorities that are listed have to provide the information. If those organisations are not listed, a mechanism is needed to include them somewhere else. I have a number of concerns, and I will go into more detail when we debate the clause on access to information.

If there is a breakdown in the relationship between the local authority and the arm’s length organisation—or, in many cases, the completely independent organisation—the local area agreement is not well served and there needs to be a formal mechanism that brings the parties together to talk. I am thinking in particular of housing.

It is fortunate that there is a good housing trust in my constituency—New Charter Housing Trust in Tameside—as well as an arm’s length management organisation in Stockport, both of which work well. However, now that the council has a statutory responsibility for housing without necessarily having the housing stock, there is the danger of a serious breakdown.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is already evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between local authorities and the NHS, because the NHS is under financial pressure? We need to ensure through this Bill that such financial pressures do not lead to the breakdown in relationships that he seeks to prevent.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton and Reddish, Labour)

I absolutely agree. It is the case not just for the NHS and for housing trusts but potentially for all organisations that are arm’s length, quasi-independent of the local authorities or totally independent of local authorities. That is why we need to tighten up this part of the Bill. I hope that the  Minister can assure us that there will be local mechanisms to bring in those other organisations.

I am sure that those relationships will remain strong in Tameside, an authority with four stars, in the top category and showing strong improvement. It is the only such authority in Greater Manchester or in the north-west—I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan were here to listen to this. However, we need to legislate for areas that do not show the same responsibility in keeping partners together.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I will be brief, and will focus on whether housing associations should be involved in local area agreements. We have heard all the arguments. There is a strong case for social landlords to be included. I cannot vote for amendment No. 136, because I am not sure what is meant by the duty on the Housing Corporation, and whether that is the right wording. Housing associations play an increasingly important role in our communities. They are not just providers of what was, in some cases, council-managed property, but they are also partners in the delivery of a range of services, most of which are in the public sector and are mentioned in the Bill. They are essential partners in tackling antisocial behaviour and their lettings policies can be crucial to community cohesion. It therefore does not make sense not to allow them to be party to, or to scrutinise, LAAs—not least because the Government’s clearly stated position on the housing role of local authorities is that they should operate strategically. This is a missed opportunity and I find the two positions a little illogical.

We have heard a lot of good examples, and I shall not go into them further. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, for instance, spoke strongly here and on Second Reading about sports trusts. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggested additions, particularly on the role of registered social landlords and NHS foundation hospital trusts.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

I just want to reinforce the point that I made in an intervention about the list going on and on. If we are to think carefully about the organisations that, at their best, make a positive contribution to community life, then schools, colleges and universities must be included. The best of them do not live in ivory towers operating in isolation; they are engaged in the life of their area. The university of Bedfordshire has taken very positive initiatives in relation to the economic development of the county as well as of the town. Wherever there are such organisations and institutions, there is a need to welcome the work that they already do and to engage them in the formal process.

Also, I cannot see in the Bill a reference to what we debated this morning, which was town and parish councils. Indeed, I mentioned urban community councils as well. Not to include those organisations formally would send a negative signal. These are organisations in which people have usually been elected, and even if people have been co-opted or appointed, at least they are showing that they wish to be engaged in improving community life. To exclude them would be a mistake, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I am grateful to hon. Members who have, on the whole, spoken about their desire to extend the number of bodies—public and, in some cases, non-public bodies—rather than question the premise of the policy, which is to include a duty to co-operate across the partners as defined. That shows me that there is a consensus for this approach; it is nice to be discussing just the boundaries of the approach. We can take some comfort from that.

As I said before, the clause sets out the list of public bodies and persons that will be partner authorities for the purposes of this chapter. The list will ensure that all the relevant public bodies involved in delivering services in a particular area will be committed to co-operating with the previously mentioned responsible authorities, as defined in clause 78, and also with each other in determining targets when local area agreements and the community strategies—the formal documents adopted by local authorities—are being prepared.

The list of partner authorities includes bodies that deliver services at the local level. To give some obvious examples, they include the police authority, the primary care trust and the jobcentre. There are also overarching bodies—commonly national bodies with regional structures—such as Sport England, which is very important in many community strategies, and the Health and Safety Executive. Those organisations have a regional or local presence and are able to engage in the setting of targets and the shaping of wider priorities.

Of course, this list of bodies is not immune to change. Other bodies whose functions are relevant to the clauses in this chapter may come into existence, so it may become necessary to change the list from time to time. To that end, there is included—as Members will have noted—an order-making power that provides that the Secretary of State may amend the list of bodies and persons after consulting the appropriate representatives of local government. That is in clause 79(6). The Secretary of State would have to consult Parliament with regard to making any such additions to the list.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

Is not one of the great problems with the clause that although the Minister is constantly reminding the Committee of the Government’s desire to devolve decisions down to local authorities, on an issue about which each local authority is best placed to determine who it should consult in order to engage in a local area agreement, the Secretary of State will determine which are the right parties, and a laborious procedure will have to be gone through by each participating principal council to secure such consent from the Secretary of State? Surely, that is the wrong way round.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

The Government’s policy and intention is to meet the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The power that the Secretary of State will have to add bodies to the list will be a power to enable devolution, so that local government can work with those partner bodies in the local area in the consultation over the local area agreement, the setting of targets and the delivery of services. What I am simply saying is that there may be bodies that do not exist at the moment, or that may carry out functions that are not being  undertaken by existing bodies, whose inclusion would make the list more relevant. Therefore, the idea of giving to the Secretary of State the power to extend the list meets the objective that the hon. Gentleman has described.

David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)

I understand the Minister when he discusses the intentions that we all agree on. Would it not be better, however, to have a wider definition of partner authorities, rather than having to find office holders and then laboriously extend the provisions? For example, it might be appropriate in principle for members of the voluntary sector, which has not been mentioned, to be included in partnership authorities. Will the Minister confirm that?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I shall respond to the specifics of the speech made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and then come to the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. In general, one is talking about public bodies, not about private companies or voluntary sector bodies, although they have important roles, particularly in contracting and commissioning, where they are very relevant. Later in the Bill, of course, we will come to the workings of local strategic partnerships.

Given the efforts that the Government and the Local Government Association made to build a consensus on this approach, I am very encouraged by the fact that we are debating the number of bodies that should be included. I have a wry smile at the irony of hon. Members calling for private companies and voluntary bodies to be included in the plans. One cannot be too dictatorial about such matters. However, as Lady Thatcher once said, “It’s a funny old world.”

I shall respond—sometimes positively—to points made by hon. Members. Adding schools to the list of partner authorities would compel the responsible local authority to co-operate with all the schools in its area when preparing or revising the draft local area agreement or community strategy. I suppose that co-operation works both ways, but I remind hon. Members that, as they will know from their constituencies, some local authorities have well over 300 schools operating in their area, many of which are small primary schools with limited capacity to contribute meaningfully to strategic objectives. To place all of them under a duty to co-operate would add significantly to the bureaucracy in the schools and local authorities.

Tom Brake rose—

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I shall not give way yet because I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will like my next point.

We believe also that the proposal is unnecessary because schools are already covered by the key partnerships in the local authority target-setting process. The 18 statutory education performance targets, which will form part of every local area agreement, are built on the statutory targets set each year by local authority maintained schools. Alongside the 35 or so suite of packages, on which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has tabled an  amendment, there is the 18 or so suite of targets for schools’ educational functions. We believe that that is the best way in which to address the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

That point was not made by me, but by the hon. Member for Bedford—a Member from the Minister’s own side. However, is the legislation not defective if the inclusion of schools in the list would require a local authority to engage each organisation in discussions, negotiations and consultations? Should that not be approached on a case-by-case basis, rather than by saying, “If you have 300 schools, you must consult them all”?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who, of course, made the point about schools. That would be the case if, as in most authorities, including mine, there was generally a co-operative climate or culture. However, as ever when legislating, one must try to predict circumstances in which the norm would not be the case. That is my concern.

Of course, schools can, and do, engage in local partnership arrangements through the children’s trusts, which I believe is a proportionate and sensible approach. The Children Act 2004 set out that procedure. We want all local authorities to look at the needs and wishes of parents of pupils in their area and include in their planning the full role of schools in delivering these objectives.

To that end, the children and young people’s plan provides a single overarching strategic plan for all services that affect children and young people in the locality. All local authorities must have such a plan except four-star authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. They are excluded from this obligation as part of the incentivisation to good performance, which is a policy that has been generally welcomed. Section 38 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which hon. Members will remember voting for, places a duty on school governing bodies to have regard to that plan. I am not trying to create a superstructure with a detailed plan that would be too heavy and too intrusive, but to provide a strategic framework through statutory duty within the local area agreement and local strategic partnership plan.

Furthermore, the 2006 Act also places a duty on schools to promote the well-being of their pupils and to promote community cohesion, a point that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made earlier. Schools are included within that point and, goodness knows, that is important. There is no implication that schools can opt out of any “place-making activities”. That is what it says in my brief although I rather agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about that. If he can suggest an alternative phrase, I should be grateful for a postcard. It was Sir Michael Lyons who coined the phrase and, as we know, one does not have to accept all the recommendations from independent commissions.

It may be helpful if I briefly mention universities and further education colleges because universities could well be very useful partners in local area groups, particularly in areas where student accommodation is changing the nature of the community. Hon. Members will know the types of communities that I am talking about. Further education colleges are already represented by the inclusion of the Learning and Skills Council as a statutory partner. The university bodies present a different case because they are independent bodies established by charter. A better solution is to encourage responsible local authorities to consult such other bodies as they consider appropriate when drafting local area agreements and community strategies. We will seek to indicate through the statutory guidance that this could and may involve universities where appropriate. I can think of a number of examples where it would be appropriate.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Clearly I welcome the fact that he will ensure that such bodies are consulted. But consulting a university is one thing, ensuring that it responds in terms of the transport implications and the impact on housing in an area is a completely different matter.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has a point about housing in particular. I visited Loughborough recently where there was a conference of local authorities hosted by Nottingham on the whole issue of housing and students. The obligation on the local authority to consult the university is important, but there are two points to bear in mind. First, this is not the be-all and end-all of existing requirements to involve and consult. This is putting a statutory duty on specified bodies, and universities present a particular challenge. I agree with him about housing. There may be local transport implications if there are large numbers of students, even though, oddly enough, some of them are now well off enough to have cars. That is why the Bill provides for universities to have the facility to enter into local area agreements, rather than compelling them to do so.

The argument that has been put to me by vice-chancellors is that universities in some cases have national and international strategic objectives. It might be appropriate to cover certain of their functional areas—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned transport and housing. However, our wider objective is to deal with those partners that help to deliver local authority services. It is a point that I have thought long and hard about, however.

The issue of how to involve the voluntary and community sectors, and indeed the commercial sector, is crucial. Those sectors are not designated partner authorities, because they are independent, and one cannot responsibly ask Parliament to bring independent private bodies under the control of statutory bodies. That would be Stalinist, and it would not work. Nevertheless, it is important that organisations in each of the voluntary, community and business sectors are involved in setting priorities and in the day-to-day working of delivery.

It would be impossible to name each and every relevant body, and it would be inappropriate to impose the new duties on them. However, the Bill provides for responsible authorities—“responsible” in the legal sense of clause 78—to consult

“such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”

when preparing the local area agreements and the community strategies. The Government’s decision to enter into statutory guidance on the matter reflects the fact that although such bodies are not statutory or public-sector bodies, they are important. That has been part of the dialogue between the Government and the voluntary sector, through the office of the third sector in the Cabinet Office and through the compact arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak is chair of the Community Development Foundation and I believe that, among his other activities, he has been extensively involved with this issue.

The arguments apply equally to the business sector. It is crucial that business and commerce are involved not just in the request for delivery of the desirable goals, but in the design of those goals, not least because of the other benefits that can derive from business involvement in shaping strategies and services. As we ask local authorities to take on more responsibility for economic regeneration and economic leadership, we are genuinely trying to create a partnership for each area that includes those organisations.

The statutory guidance that will follow enactment of the Bill will stress that organisations in each of the voluntary, community and business sectors must be involved in the process. How that happens it a matter for the local area. That it should be done will be a matter of statutory guidance, however. It will also be possible for bodies in those sectors to agree to help to deliver particular targets on a voluntary basis. I refer the Committee to subsections (1)(c) and (3) of clause 80.

The amendments in the group have been moved with good intent, within the framework of the Government’s policy. I am advised that amendment No. 49 would have the consequence—unintended, I assume—of removing primary care trusts. I make that observation for the benefit of the Committee, although it is not my argument against the amendment.

On the positive side, amendments Nos. 49 and 65 seek to add NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts to the list of partner authorities. The involvement of those bodies in local area agreement processes is clearly desirable, but it is made difficult by the fact that some trusts provide regional and national services. That is the other side of the coin to the point made by the hon. Member for Poole.

Let me explain my thinking. Great Ormond Street, for example, delivers specialist services on a national basis. There could and would be confusion as to which local authorities and local authority services it should co-operate with. Great Ormond Street patients come from all over the country, and I imagine from all over the world, so such an amendment could mean that it would have to be consulted on and co-operate in the preparation of local area agreement targets. That is a technical point and not my main point, but it is important not to impose unduly on such trusts.

The Government, however, recognise the importance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts and it is our intention, following representations and comments, to name them in the Bill in such a way as to avoid the Great Ormond Street problem but to include them as partner authorities. I hope that the Committee will welcome that commitment. As late as yesterday, the Association of Directors of Social Services was making  a similar point, given the importance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford wish to intervene?

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

I was building up to intervene, but not on the NHS. Now that I am on my feet, I shall say that I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not forget my point about parish and town councils and why they should not be partner authorities. He has not come to that yet.

Tom Brake rose—

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

On the Great Ormond Street problem, we would clearly not want the local area agreement to require Great Ormond Street to address issues that are about its national or international profile. Can the Minister clarify whether the amendment that he intends to table, or the guidance or whatever, will ensure that the implications of such a hospital on traffic, employment and so on are covered?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

That is what we are trying to do—it is the central point. We do not want to involve specialist care units for babies who are seriously ill, but we do want to involve the hospital in matters relevant to the local area.

Amendment No. 65 would add the Mayor of London and Transport for London to the list of partner authorities. The Greater London authority is of course already represented in the list by three of its functional bodies—the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Development Agency. I intend to add a fourth, Transport for London, by amendment following consultations and representations. It is more appropriate to name the GLA’s delivery bodies than the Mayor himself, because they can agree and deliver local area agreement targets, a function that the Mayor does not have. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Mayor and his office are subject to an accountability structure through the London assembly, as we have heard.

Similarly, there is an argument against parishes and community councils being added to the list. It would make the list of partners to be brought around a table very long. To give one example, North Yorkshire has 588 parish councils and the constituency of Bassetlaw has 88. That is a pragmatic point, although we will be signalling in the guidance the importance of involving parishes. Parish plans, which are important in the delivery of services to local areas, will of course be linked to local authorities’ community strategies. There are therefore two arguments on parishes: one pragmatic and the other asking to whom they are accountable. Ultimately one cannot supplant their accountability to the electorate with targets, even if they were agreed on.

Amendment No. 88 would add to the list of partner authorities any individuals or bodies that provide general medical services. It is not entirely certain and  would be difficult to define in law what effects the wording would have, but it appears that it would include general practitioners. It might also include those providing medical services in acute trusts. To include such a broad group would make the process unworkable. It makes more sense to focus on primary care trusts, which commission both primary services and the hospital-based NHS.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister is being very helpful in outlining how he will address the issue of NHS trusts. It is welcome. Will he clarify, now or later, whether independent treatment centres would be included under the amendment?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

The crucial point is that the process of commissioning services would include the obligation to work toward the targets. To that extent, the amendment would apply in such an instance. The argument is similar to the one about registered social landlords, to which I am about to come.

Amendment No. 117 would add to the list of partner authorities the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government, Education and Skills, Trade and Industry, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Department. I am compelled to point out that in law there is only one Secretary of State, so the Bill’s definition of the Secretary of State includes them all. It is an important point in the policy, and one that local government fears. It is suspicious or anxious that somehow the agreement is with my Department and not with central Government as a whole. Local area agreements are made with central Government, and indeed signed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous Secretaries of State. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Amendment No. 117 would add registered social landlords to the list. Although I recognise their important role, I do not agree that they should be added to the list of partner authorities. First, they are not public bodies. They can be charities, limited companies or industrial and provident societies. I have sought to avoid naming such organisations in the clauses for the reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to place registered social landlords under the duties, as they are not tied to any particular geographical area. For example, one RSL is based in Sheffield yet owns properties all over the country. In such circumstances, it would be unclear to a local authority which RSL to consult. I recognise that that is a technical and pragmatic point, but I shall come to a larger policy point.

The Government-commissioned Cave review, due to report in April, is examining the whole regulatory framework for social housing, including registered social landlords. Having discussed the matter across Government, we have decided that it would be premature to name RSLs in the Bill, as their remit and status may be subject to change. As we have said, the Bill provides for the possibility of adding to the list of partner authorities, and we might be able to do so later. I emphasise that there is no intention one way or the other at this stage; I mention it merely as a possibility. Also, the Government have recently merged the  Housing Corporation with English Partnerships, which is covered in the list of bodies.

Hon. Members asked about the Highways Agency. I point the Committee to clause 79(3)(g)(ii) and (iii), which deal with the Secretary of State’s exercise of the functions. The Highways Agency does not operate legally as a separate entity. Its duties are performed on behalf of the Secretary of State, so it is included in the list of partner authorities. I think that constituency Members of Parliament, as well as local authorities, will welcome that.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

On the subject of transport—the Minister might have been about to come to it—Network Rail has been mentioned. I know that there is a long, heated argument about the precise status of Network Rail and whether it is part of the state, but I hope that the Minister will set out his position on the company.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that opportunity. There is a good reason why we cannot accept the inclusion of Network Rail as a partner authority: it is a private company that is limited by guarantee and therefore has its own regulatory and target-setting framework. He might argue that it should not be a private limited company, but that issue is not within the scope of the Bill and I shall not be drawn on it. I am sure that you would not allow us to discuss that anyway, Mr. Benton.

Network Rail is subject to a licence that is enforced by the Office of Rail Regulation, which sets the targets for Network Rail. The ORR is an independent regulator and Network Rail would therefore be unable to fulfil a duty of co-operation to agree to targets in a local area agreement. Transport functions that are carried out by responsible authorities, whether passenger transport authorities or the transport authority functions within local councils, would be subject to that duty of co-operation. The Bill is intended to define the boundaries between national and local in the way that the Sustainable Communities Bill is intended to, but I believe that this Bill does so more successfully. I hope that that answers that question about this important clause.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

It is rare at the Committee stage for Opposition Members to feel that the Government have made a significant concession. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who speaks for the official Opposition on housing matters, bemoaned the fact that, as a Member of Parliament, he could not show his mother any achievements of changing the Government’s legislation. I think that people will feel envious that today, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have secured from the Minister an important undertaking in relation to NHS trusts, which is extremely welcome.

I am not sure that the Minister has convinced Members on either side of the Committee about his reasons for opting for a list approach to identify partners, rather than a much more flexible approach. In years to come, we will visit the Secretary of State many times to add names to or remove names from that list.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

That is an important point. The reason for such an approach is to empower local authorities. I want the list on the face of the Bill so that it is known that the public authorities concerned have a duty to co-operate in the meeting of targets in their areas. I would rather have a debate between central and local government about who should be on or off that list than about whether there should be a list. There is an alternative option, as the hon. Gentleman explained, but I think that my approach is more likely to help local authorities succeed in fulfilling the aim.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the Minister is right; no doubt, time will tell. He has made some significant pronouncements today about areas of the Bill that he intends to amend in ways that I think would improve it.

Opposition Members, joined by three Back Benchers on the Minister’s side, have expressed some strong reservations. We might defeat the Government and blot forever the careers of those three Government Back Benchers if we were to press the amendments to a Division, but I think that it is appropriate to return to the issue at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I wish to say a few words about the clause and the direction of travel. It is entitled “Application of Chapter: partner authorities”, and I wish to draw to the Committee’s attention what is self-evident: that by far and away the most significant and biggest partner of local government is national Government. The Secretary of State—I am sorry, I mean the Minister; I got a little ahead of his promotion schedule there—referred to Secretaries of State and said that, of course, there is only one Secretary of State. I guess the collective noun for Secretaries of State is Government. That emphasises the point that it is a relationship—hopefully a partnership—between central Government and local government that is at the core of delivering services and ensuring that democracy works well. It is certainly the Liberal Democrats’ view that that partnership should be seen to be and should actually be a partnership of equals, where there are clear boundaries on the responsibilities and the rights to interfere, to directand to innovate, and where both local government and national Government are seen as having a separate and legitimate constitutional existence.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the European charter of local self-government, which sets out some of the constraints that a national Government should have in mind when they are in, or developing, a partnership with local government. Is the Minister satisfied that, in the light of the clause in particular and the Bill as a whole, he will be in a position to say that the Government are compliant with that charter? If so, will he move towards seeing the UK ratify that charter?

My colleagues and I attempted to table a new clause that would have made more explicit the need for that partnership arrangement to be formal, and to establish a concordat between national and local government. We were unable to do that because it was outside the scope of the Bill. However, I would like to hear from  the Minister whether, on behalf of the Secretary of State, he would undertake to initiate a dialogue with local government, so that we could lead a move towards a situation where that ratification could take place and we could see in place a concordat that clearly sets out the relevant powers and responsibilities of the two tiers of government, local and national.

Underlying many of the debates that we have had so far—and many of the debates that lie ahead on the Bill—are the problems, the difficulties, the suspicion and the mistrust between the two layers. The Government do not trust local government and, let us be blunt, local government often does not trust national Government. Perhaps both have some right on their side, but surely we should be working to draw together a stronger partnership of equals. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to developing that over the coming years.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

Perhaps I should respond in some more detail outside the Committee to the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Perhaps he could table a written question in order to give the Government the opportunity to answer. It is relevant to the Committee that we have that dialogue, as he will know, with the Local Government Association through various structures, and the UK representatives of local government in that dialogue tend, in my experience, genuinely to act in the country’s interest rather than in a partisan way. That is to be welcomed.

I hope that, notwithstanding the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, that I have convinced the Committee that the intention behind the clause is precisely to achieve the sort of co-operation that we need. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that central Government do not trust local government, and local government does not trust central Government. That is the impression that is given sometimes, but on the whole local government is a partner in the governance of the country and we need it to be so.