Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 68, page 51, line 3, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 103, in clause 68, page 51, line 4, after second ‘a’, insert ‘representative’.

Amendment 104, in clause 68, page 51, line 5, leave out ‘(whether or not incorporated)’.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

As the hon. Member for Wycombe said earlier, we return to a continuing theme. As we move through the Bill, many of our debates will relate to the same theme. I was intrigued to hear the Minister describe any position between defending the existing regions as they stand and having no regions as sitting on the fence, as if there can be no middle ground between those two views.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

It is very easy to describe it that way.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The Government’s position is now on the record, and I am sure that it will be evaluated by all. No regional policy can move forward along any other line than that relating to the boundaries that were set fairly arbitrarily a decade or so ago.

Similarly, we now move on to a discussion about leaders’ boards that began briefly on our last amendment to the previous clause. The issue is whether leaders’ boards represent the appropriate mechanism for all areas of the country to have input into any emerging regional policy, or strategy. On reading the Bill, our view is that saying that a leaders’ board must be the way to go for everybody is too prescriptive. That is why we suggest taking out the word “must” and inserting the word “may” in its place. There might well be other ways in which we can have a representative element to considering regional policy that would work alongside the regional development agency, interact with it and reassure people that elected representatives have a say in what the policy is. To that end, I am happy to move amendment 102, which seeks to allow greater flexibility in determining what the democratic arrangements should be in terms of moving forward with regional policy.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I will be extremely brief because I am speaking only to this particular amendment and will make substantive comments on the clause later during the stand-part debate. We are inclined to support the amendment because generally the powers contained in the clause are too draconian, too sweeping, take insufficient account of the role of local authorities and give way too much power to the Secretary of State. On that basis, “may” instead of “must” is the correct way forward.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I urge the Committee to reject the amendment because it is important that people are able to see the arrangements that have been put in place for how leaders’ boards are to be established. It will be for  participating authorities to decide how they wish to organise themselves, but, as I have said, it is important that people are able to see what those arrangements are. Having a scheme in place is an important part of that process as it means that leaders’ boards will be streamlined and manageable, and that there is clarity about how participating authorities will work together with the RDAs to fulfil their duties, including in relation to how they resolve any differences. That is important because, in a sense, it goes back to the points that I am sure will be made about how the process takes place and how people understand it. Without a scheme in place, it is difficult to see how there would be that transparency. That is why the amendments are not the right way forward.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I hear what the Minister has to say about there being flexibility for regions to come up with their own arrangements, but it strikes me that there is freedom for them to come up with their own arrangements as long as there is some form of leaders’ board. That is a bit like Henry Ford saying that people can have a car in any colour they want as long as it is black. That is the problem for us; the measure is too prescriptive. On that basis and given that there seems to be some support on the Committee for pressing the matter to a vote, I will seek to do so.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 68, page 51, line 6, after ‘is’, insert ‘for the purposes of this Act’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 106, in clause 68, page 51, line 6, leave out ‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘Responsible Regional Authority.’.

Amendment 107, in clause 68, page 51, line 23, leave out ‘a Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘the Responsible Regional Authority.’.

Amendment 108, in clause 68, page 51, line 24, leave out ‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘Responsible Regional Authority.’.

Amendment 110, in clause 68, page 51, line 32, leave out ‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘the Responsible Regional Authority.’.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Again, the amendments refer to what the democratic accountability will be within the future regional structure. Although their aims are the same,  the amendments have two elements. They seek to be less restrictive about what the democratic oversight should be. The term “Leaders’ Board” should be replaced throughout the clause with “the Responsible Regional Authority” and allow such authorities to be defined as local authorities coming together to set priorities and draw up regional proposals along the lines that we discussed—that regions are made up of the local authorities in the area rather than imposed from above. Therefore, local authorities need a far stronger role in determining strategy and policy.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Does he propose taking the leaders’ board out of clause 68 due to the Hitchin and Harpenden consideration raised on Second Reading? He may be more expert than I am, but, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the Bill are the “leaders” who will sit on the board defined. Are they local authority leaders or nursery group leaders? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point and, indeed, what mechanisms determine how many representatives of districts, for example, there are in two-tier areas? That also remains to be clarified.

The second element to the amendments is removing the regional development agency from who the responsible regional authorities are. The regional development agency should be more of a delivery arm for regional strategy than a body equal to local authorities in determining what that regional strategy should be. That is the approach that my party would take. Those who take decisions about spending large amounts of money and drafting strategy ought to be democratically accountable. People employed through the regional development agency are there to deliver that strategy and ensure that that vision becomes a reality, rather than be on an equal footing.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

We are not minded to support the Liberal Democrat amendments because they are not sufficiently robust and do not further our knowledge of how the clause would work in practice. In fact, they go against the Liberal Democrat protestations about wishing to focus primarily on a bottom-up process. The leaders’ board is an imperfect system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe made clear, and we will debate that in detail in the clause stand part debate, However, surely replacing the leaders’ boards is better than the opaque concept of a regional body, notwithstanding the problem that too much power may be vested in, for instance, one or two individuals in a local authority or in all the local authorities in the south-west. Therefore, we do not feel disposed to support the amendment and will have plenty to say about particular aspects of the clause in the clause stand part debate.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Will you give me some guidance on whether we are also addressing amendment 110? I am not sure that it was referred to, or moved.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

The Minister would be entirely right to address remarks to amendment 110. It was part of the group, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to it obliquely.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I must have missed that nugget.

I ask the Committee to reject these amendments, because it is not clear what they would achieve. It appears that they would make local authorities the responsible regional authority without the involvement of regional development agencies. When we come to the stand part debate, I hope that it will become clear that we envisage a partnership between the local authorities and RDAs in drawing up the strategy. We think that that is particularly important given the focus on the economy, but the amendments would limit that partnership.

On amendment 110, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that following amendments in another place, the Bill now requires that the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 1972, with suitable modifications, as required, be applied to leaders’ boards as constituted by local authorities. We are exploring, with RDAs and local authorities, how best to manage access to information for their joint working on regional strategies outside legislation. With that reassurance and explanation, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Through the amendments, we sought to identify ways to allow for democratic involvement other than the leaders’ board formula proposed by the Government. I do not think that the Minister seeks to be prescriptive, but the provisions talk only about leaders being represented. It would have been good to have slightly more leeway for local areas to come together and work out appropriate arrangements for their particular circumstances. I have no problem with the concept that RDAs and local authorities should work in partnership. However, there is sometimes a slight power imbalance in that relationship. We would seek to set up a democratic framework that would put democratically elected people at the heart of decision making. The appointed members and officers of the RDA should work alongside them, but not have the same involvement in decision making. That is an important principle that I would have liked to have seen in this Bill. However, we can discuss in more detail, during the clause stand part debate, what leaders’ boards are for and what they will do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 68, page 51, line 26, leave out subsection (8).

We are moving into the area of the powers of the Secretary of State. Clause 68(8) states:

“If the Secretary of State considers that a Leaders’ Board established for a region is not operating effectively, the Secretary of State may by direction withdraw approval for the scheme under which it is established”.

This is contrary to the view shared by my party in favour of a bottom-up approach. We should be moving forward and creating confidence among people in local areas and regions that their views matter and will be taken seriously. I am also concerned that we are talking about stepping in, where there is a problem, against the leaders’ board rather than the RDA. The Government may have constituted this as a partnership between the two, but it seems that the Secretary of State envisages a greater likelihood of problems with the leaders’ board than with the RDA. We might call into question that  premise. My party hopes that we can remove this top-down measure, which enshrines in the Bill greater power for the Secretary of State to interfere in these local and regional mechanisms.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

Again, I concur with the hon. Gentleman. We will support his amendment. We believe that subsection (8) vests disproportionate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, particularly the power to remove a leaders’ board from the plan-making process without new primary legislative authority. These powers are open to the possibility of abuse—I use that word because it could well happen.

It also seems that accountability is only one way. The question must be asked why the power is not used in respect of RDAs. Why is it used only for leaders’ boards? It speaks volumes about the disregard and disdain for people at the cutting edge of local government that the Secretary of State can invoke pretty significant powers to disregard the leaders’ board and not have concomitant powers applying to the RDA.

I am sorry that the Government, when drafting the subsection, did not seek the advice, for instance, of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which made the very reasonable point that it would have been better to establish a mechanism enabling the Secretary of State to identify and direct, where necessary, improvements in service by a leaders’ board and enabling equivalent action to be taken against the RDA if warranted. The Government have been over-prescriptive and too heavy-handed and, on that basis, we are minded to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The aim of the amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to withdraw approval for the leaders’ board scheme. I want to assure the Committee that it is simply a fall-back power to deal with situations in which the leaders’ board is unable to function to the satisfaction of the participating authorities. It is important that we have this provision to ensure that if any difficult situations arise, we can ensure that leaders’ boards function effectively.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

In responding, the Minister was keen to point out that it would be almost a petition from the local area—from the region—saying that things were not working well and asking whether the Secretary of State could therefore step in. That is not what the provision says at the moment. It concerns me that something might be set up that is functioning and challenging Government policy on how the region should move forward, but the RDA is unhappy with the challenge it is receiving from the leaders’ board, and therefore the Secretary of State could step in and say that there was some sort of dysfunction and we needed to go back to the drawing board.

The Minister’s response hints at the fact that leaders’ boards may not be the right model everywhere. In respect of the previous debate, which I shall not seek to reopen, it shows an acknowledgment by the Secretary of State that all might not be perfect with leaders’ boards. Therefore, it is a shame that it is the only model on offer.

Having said that, the measure is unnecessary and gives too much power, which could be abused, to the Secretary of State. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I shall endeavour not to revisit the debate on subsection (8), which focused on what was probably our primary reason for thinking that the clause is unsatisfactory. However, there are several other reasons as well.

The clause is loosely written, in particular subsection (4) about consultation. It is inappropriate to put in the Bill that the Secretary of State should, in effect, be able to choose whom they wish to be consulted with and by. No doubt the Minister will say that that is normal procedure with Bills, and that it is how they are drafted by people with more expertise than I have, but it cannot be acceptable in a mature democracy that a central personality in, as I said previously, a unitary state, can say that they will choose whom they seek to accept consultation from on an important issue such as a regional strategy. We are not happy about that.

Clearly, we are also unhappy that subsection (8) is in the clause because it is all very well for the regional development agency—

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister will provide an explanation of the point, if any, regarding consultation. It is a bit puzzling that such a provision was not inserted in previous clauses that we considered. For example, clause 66 on local authority economic assessments simply requires that the Secretary of State should consult.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

As ever, my hon. Friend is forensic and astute. He is absolutely right, and the Minister should address that issue. We need to know why the provision is considered to be appropriate in this clause but not in others.

We also need to look at the concept of “leader”. The definition of leader is loose, and we can see future legal difficulties in respect of it. For instance, is a leader a directly elected mayor in the south-west region? Is the leader the directly elected mayor of Torbay or is it the Conservative leader of the administration? We have mayoralties across the country—in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Bedford. The issue of who the leader is needs to be considered. Will the leader have a deputy, and will they always be the deputy leader of the district council or the borough council? Moreover, the wording in subsection (10) is very loose and massively open to interpretation. It states:

“The application referred to in subsection (9) may be with such modifications as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.”

That vests enormous powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in dealing with leaders’ boards but not with RDAs.

This whole clause fails to rise to the challenge of the sub-national review. We Conservatives took the Government at their word when the sub-national review was announced and enacted. It was about devolving power to localities and giving more say to democratically elected local councillors. This clause is an inadequate response to the consultation that took place at the time. People in district, borough and unitary authorities and other councils did not say, “Abolish regional assemblies and let us have this super-regional quango for the great and the good.” They said, “Let’s have real democracy and accountability at a local level.” Therefore, this clause fails the test. We believe that it also fails in the context of joint responsibilities for regional policy to address that democratic deficit.

Finally, it is appropriate to mention the British Chambers of Commerce, which makes the point that the architecture being established by this clause within the context of the wider Bill would weaken the sub-regional planning role of local authorities and further undermine their capacity to make decisions in the best interests of their local residents.

Therefore, for all those reasons, we are not minded to support the clause and we will be voting against it.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

We now come to the central dilemma at the heart of the Government’s policy. They believe that there has to be a regional dimension—an aspect of policy that is delivered in a zone below that of the nation. The question is, how do we make that dimension accountable? Ever since the election in the north-east, that question has remained unanswered. A directly elected regional assembly would have been an answer. That went down not just marginally but hugely in the region that was assumed to be the most likely to vote in favour of it. Some people might argue that it was defeated because the powers given to the regional assembly were piddling—about 6p in the pound in terms of public expenditure. In fact the idea went down for other reasons. It went down because people felt that there was going to be another tier of politicians and they had enough tiers of politicians already. Quite frankly, had the regional assembly been endowed with the riches of Croesus and the wisdom of Solomon, I suspect that it would still have been voted down in the region.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

On the Bible or on the regional assembly?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that part of the reason why the assembly was voted down was perhaps that the region did not make sense to the people who were being asked to vote to make it democratically accountable?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

What matters is that it was defeated. It was defeated so heavily that that corpse will not come back to life.

That was the first outcome. The second way was to make the assembly directly accountable to existing local democratic institutions. Broadly speaking, that is a policy of my party, but the Government believe that it is too diffuse and that one really has to have an alternative and better form of accountability. The trouble is how to devise and deliver it. If there is no regional assembly—that has been removed from the picture—and one does not believe that local authorities have the capacity or the scale to be able to do it, what is left?

We are now on our second or third attempt to find something left. We had the regional assemblies with the nominated members, which have been abolished by the Bill, and now we have the leaders’ board. We envisage a somewhat curious mixture of a quango and people who are indirectly elected to serve. They are not directly accountable; nobody is going to vote for somebody to be a member of the leaders’ board. They are going to vote for their councillor who may emerge as the leader or, perhaps, as directly elected mayor, and they will then represent them.

That immediately poses a series of questions, the first regarding the hybrid of the quango and the elected councillors. Secondly, there is the question of representation. I have already mentioned the south-east and the existence of 77 councils, but I have just looked up another three areas. In Yorkshire and Humber, which the Minister and I are most familiar with, there are 22 councils. I suspect that two national parks have to be added to that, so there are 24 elected bodies of one sort or another. In the south-west of England, I make it 41 councils, and there will be national parks to add there as well. In the north-west, we have 41 local authorities and they are quite different in character. Yorkshire and Humber, in population terms, is weighted towards the south and west of Yorkshire, which consists entirely of metropolitan authorities. The district councils are very much exclusively clustered in north Yorkshire. Much more scattered is the south-west, where we have the new unitary councils, but the district councils are much more predominant. In the south-east, of course, there are huge numbers of district councils. The whole of old Lancashire is still divided into district councils.

Even if agreement can be made on who the leaders will be on the board—in Yorkshire and Humber I understand that the agreement is for eight people to sit on it—how do they then report back? It is one thing for the leaders to have a congress of local authority leaders who will choose their representatives to sit on the board, but it is quite another for them to be accountable when they take decisions that might not necessarily be popular. I am afraid that I am repeating myself when I say that housing issues are always the most controversial. People get most excited when they think that housing is being imposed on them. The leaders have got to report back. How will that process of accountability work? How will members be replaced if they do not operate in, to use the Bill’s words, an “effective” way? I can see all sorts of difficulty with that very indirect accountability.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Apart from having no regional strategy and no local government presence at all, what alternative is the right hon. Gentleman promoting?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

There are a variety of alternatives. If a local authority believes that it wishes to maintain an over-arching body, I can see no reason why it should not be allowed to do that. We should let 1,000 flowers bloom; we should not be deterministic in the structures. If we are talking about the sub-regions, I would devolve much more power to the city region. If we are going to have a city region, such as Leeds or Manchester, it is absurd that the regional development agency should not be specific to that area and co-operate with other ones. It is nonsense that it should not have what it needs to succeed. The learning and skills council can be brought under that roof and, frankly, if I were the directly elected mayor of Leeds, I would want my own police authority, because people would ask most questions about law and order. The Government have not thought through the relationship between the sub-regional strategy and the wider regional strategy with which they are persisting. There is obviously a lot of work to do to find structures that will work, but I would very much want to invite local authorities to participate. They would certainly want to work together. They are not going to act in an entirely isolated manner.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

Some of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments resonate with my personal politics, but is he confident that his Front-Bench team will agree with him and implement such a diverse approach?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

It would be extraordinarily bold of any Back Bencher to assume that his ideas have paramount influence with his Front Bench team, but, if I may say so, I believe that the Tory Front Bench is sensible and flexible, and that the experience of government is a great educator. Given the task that would face any incoming Government, it would be sensible to limit one’s order of priorities. I have every confidence that the policies will be sufficiently pragmatic and that the emphasis will be on what is workable. The Minister must not forget that we will be working with predominantly Conservative local government, because even in Cornwall I understand that the Labour party came fifth or sixth behind the Cornish nationalists, which must be quite an achievement, even for that party.

The regional development agencies are the other side of the equation. The truth of the matter is that it is very difficult to say how successful they have been in comparison with an alternative, because we have no control against which to compare them.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

We have.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

No, no. When I was Minister in charge of regeneration, I was always dubious about some of the claims that were made. Characteristically they would be about jobs created; another great claim was about jobs preserved. I always said, “How do you demonstrate that the actions of a regional development agency have preserved or conserved jobs?” It is somewhat speculative. How do we know? No one has done any modelling to find out whether the money devoted to regional development agencies would better have gone on training, to try to enhance skills, or what would have happened if it had gone into highways infrastructure. What would that have done for the development of the region? We do not have that control, so we should be cautious before making too absolute a claim for the regional development agency.

Therefore, what is being proposed, although it is quite bold, in a sense, is an attempt to square the circle of getting some accountability into a predetermined regional policy. I hope that, in so far as it will come into effect before the next general election, and can show itself to be workable, it can be seen in that perspective. However, I have doubts about it.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Are my right hon. Friend’s doubts increased or decreased by the consideration of money? According to the clause, the only money that the boards will have are sums delegated by the Secretary of State. They will not have any control at all, that I can see, over money.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

That is certainly a factor, and there are also many questions about how people are chosen, how the bodies will function, and whether the meetings will take place in public. For example, one of the perennial discussions in government is about whether there would be replacements or substitutes, and a lot of that is left to the bodies to decide.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I am not quite clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing with the point made by his Front-Bench spokesman, which again is not quite clear to me. Is the suggestion being made that the regional development agencies should be allowed to make a levy? Otherwise, I do not understand the point about where the delegated money would come from. If the suggested alternative is a levy, that is interesting.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I am not aware of any policy that would endow the regional development agencies with the ability to levy taxation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did not have that in mind, but if he were to catch my eye I would allow him to clarify it.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

The Minister has just demonstrated that she was not listening carefully to an earlier part of the debate on the economic assessments, in which we made it clear that, in her own terms, this structure will not work. It is not a properly joined-up regional structure. Were there to be one, we would, of course, not support it, but like the economic assessments, which are completely free-floating and do not feed into the machinery that she describes, these clauses will not even have the effect that she claims.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

The issue of accountability has not been cracked; that is the top and bottom of it. [Interruption.] No, because Yorkshire and Humber will have eight members of the leaders’ board, and I think that I just quoted the number of local councils as 22, which is relatively small. It is hugely more in other parts of the world, and that will be a problem.

I permit myself a small speculation about when the first great meeting takes place. I assume that the members of the leaders’ board will wear sashes, like French mayors, to show that they are members, perhaps with a coat of arms, and there will be a fanfare. I can imagine a suitable fanfare, and I think that, as they march up to the local government office, the town hall, or perhaps the cathedral, choirs will sing the “Hallelujah” chorus, “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, “Zadok the Priest” or the triumphal march from “Aida”, all of which will be appropriate music as the members of the great local  authority leaders’ board go to assume their great functions. I should be pleased to hear about any other musical interpretations of that moment.

The Minister has simply got to answer the question. [Interruption.] I think we are going to come down in tone.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I want the right hon. Gentleman to have the opportunity to withdraw some sneering remarks about many of his own councillors, who are doing a lot of work to make this structure effective. They feel strongly about this and would feel insulted by his dismissing them as wearing sashes, and all that stuff.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

When I address the dinner of Conservative councillors at the Local Government Association conference a week tomorrow, no doubt they will tell me about it then, if they have anything to be upset about. But the great virtue of the Conservative councillors is their pragmatism, and they will work with the Government of the day. The Minister is the last Labour Local Government Minister, so they will, for the time being, work with her. When another Minister comes along, they will work with him or her to develop structures that they will, perhaps, feel are more appropriate. I have no doubt that they might still invite me to address their dinners.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

Mr. Amess, you are aware that my constituency of Eccles is to be abolished. We are abolished, as they say. Nevertheless, it is my job, until the day of the next general election, to represent the interests of my constituents. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister some questions by way of clarification.

My view, within my own personal politics, has always been that decisions should be made at the most local, appropriate level. I am in line with the choice agenda for individuals, but it is clear to every politician of every party that strategic decisions need to be taken. Therefore the most appropriate level needs to be found at which to make strategic decisions as close to our constituents as possible.

I sat on the Local Transport Bill Committee with my right hon. Friend the Minister. That Bill not only took forward transport issues positively, but it developed local democracy and decision making. My questions relate to the impact of the consultation for integrated transport authorities in respect of the clause. I would like to make three points that I hope my right hon. Friend will take on board and perhaps clarify.

First, where two or more local authorities decide to undertake a review of the Government’s arrangements for both transport and economic development in an area where there is an existing integrated transport authority, the ITA should also be invited to participate in the review. That is sensible and should be required because the ITA will have the expert knowledge of the transport functions for which it is responsible and which may be transferred to the new combined authority. Secondly, the ITA is an existing sub-regional body and could bring valuable knowledge and contributions on governance arrangements when operating at that level. Thirdly, particularly where the review under the Bill is for an area that encompasses only part of an ITA’s area, the ITA will need to advise on and understand the impact of any proposals. My question, therefore, is that  where the review area involves all or part of the ITA’s integrated transport area, will the ITA be invited to participate in the review?

My second point is designed to seek reassurance that the positive gains made under the Local Transport Act 2008 are not diminished. Where authorities undertake a review with the prospect of creating a combined authority—an authority that combines transport and economic development powers sub-regionally—I want them to take into account any review of transport governance arrangements already completed under the similar review provisions in the 2008 Act. That would be required because a number of ITAs are already undertaking reviews of transport governance arrangements for the sub-region. The findings of those reviews will need to be considered in any review under the Bill’s provisions. A requirement to have regard to any already completed review should make any further review more efficient. I therefore want to ask whether authorities that undertake a review under this provision will have regard to any relevant review of transport carried out under the provisions of part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 relating to all or part of the review area that was completed in the 24 months preceding the commencement of a review under this provision of the Bill.

Finally, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether those authorities that commence a review of the transport and economic development governance arrangements for an area will invite any authorities already undertaking that for the same area, or part of it, to participate in the review? It seems sensible not to have two reviews of the same issue proceeding at the same time. If they are, it would make sense to have joint participation and co-ordination.

Additionally, the Bill’s review of transport and economic development governance should be informed by work already being undertaken by any transport-only review under the Local Transport Act 2008. Again, for clarification, my question is: where a review under this provision is to be undertaken, and any part of the review area is the subject of an ongoing review under part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008, will the authorities undertaking the Act’s review be invited to participate in the review to be undertaken under the Bill?

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

This interesting debate has given us an insight into the perspectives of the different parties and, if I may say so, the factions in one of those parties—let me run through them. The Conservative view was probably best expressed by the hon. Member for Wycombe who said—trenchantly I thought—“We do not think this will work, but even if we were convinced that it would work, we would still vote against it because we do not like it.”

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Let me put it even more clearly for the right hon. Gentleman: either there must be elected regional assemblies—and that is out now—

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Oh?

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

I repeat that that is out now—from everyone’s point of view. It always was from our point of view, and now it is from the Minister’s. Alternatively, there is a bottom-up approach, but we cannot have this dog’s breakfast in the middle.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to get away from his earlier formulation, but he will see it when he reads Hansard. It encapsulated the Thatcherite ideological opposition to regionalism. We heard a rather different approach from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. It was characteristically thoughtful—

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Bear with me a moment. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is probably miffed that I did not characterise his perception, but I will give him a full opportunity to present it in a moment. First, I shall give my view of the perception of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. He understood the regional dimension and that there are some matters that have to be dealt with at a level below the national level and above the local level, so there has to be a mechanism to allow that. However, he was not convinced that the current proposal would work. I detected in that a traditional Conservative Burkean approach of world-weary pessimism, which was briefly lifted by a sudden ray of light when he had the vision of the massed ranks of dignitaries gathering together in sashes, with assembled choirs singing “Hail the Conquering Hero Comes”, on his arrival to address the Conservative councillors at their meeting next week.

The Liberal Democrats’ view, which was more or less shared between the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North Cornwall, was that they liked the idea of regional government but not the current blueprint. In particular, they do not like the current regions, and say that until there is consensus between all local authorities as to what constitutes the right region—remember they have just advocated an amendment suggesting that nothing should happen unless there is total consensus—nothing will happen, so they are the “nothing will happen” party.

Against this we have received in the post—I hope all members of the Committee have received it—a very persuasive letter from the chief executive of 4NW, the embryo leaders’ board for the north-west region. It says:

“I am writing to let you know how 4NW has established itself as a Regional Leaders Board in anticipation of the legislation that is being considered by your Committee”—

not my Committee, I hasten to add, but your Committee, Mr. Amess. It continues:

“Local Government in the North West has come together with senior representatives from business and the third sector to form a genuinely high level Regional Leaders Board.”

It includes the leaders of all the metropolitan authorities and county councils in the area, the representatives of the chambers of commerce and major businesses, the voluntary sector, trade unions and some participating observers from other important agencies. That seems an eminently practical way forward, which I commend.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to speak in last night’s debate in the House on business rates because we missed his contribution. His argument does not take account of the very simple fact that the Government seem to have tried everything to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon regarding true local democracy. It is hard to recognise the north-east of England as the ultra-Thatcherite wing of the British people, but they had this debate in 2004. They discussed the whole idea of regional government and comprehensively rejected it. The Government are now inching towards some kind of compromise, but it will not work.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I was much involved in that saga in the north-east. On another occasion, when there is time, I will give a full account of the reasons for the no vote. It was more complex than either of the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. The particular formulation put at that time, and the circumstances of the time, explain why the north-east voted strongly no. It was not a rejection of regional government per se, however, because, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon recognises, there are important matters that need to be dealt with at a level between the national and the local. Apart from in London, where there was a decisive yes vote for a city-wide authority—to all intents and purposes a regional authority for London—there is no such mechanism in the country.

A search for an appropriate solution is right. As I was illustrating, the response of 4NW in the north-west seems to be an eminently practical and pragmatic approach by the political leaders in that region to make things work. I believe that it deserves our support. I am delighted that they are approaching the matter in such a positive and inclusive way. I commend their approach, and in particular support the Government’s persistence in recognising that the issue will not go away and has to be dealt with. We must find practical ways to ensure that those things that have to be decided between the national and local levels are decided through an appropriate framework.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. Before we continue with our debate on clause 68, I wish to read something into the record concerning the point that the hon. Member for Eccles asked the Minister to respond to. I was not privy to a conversation that the hon. Member for Eccles had with our excellent Clerk—this is a get-out clause—but I was slightly confused when the hon. Gentleman moved from talking about consultations to reviews. The main point that he clearly came on to was entirely to do with clause 71. Quite what the Chair will do about that, I am delighted to say, will be for my co-Chair, Mr. Eric Illsley, to decide about later. I thought that I should put the matter straight. We are debating clause 68 stand part.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. Perhaps I ought to be absolutely clear with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, because he raised some very important points about the relationship with transport authorities. With your permission, I suggest that I address the majority of those points a little later when we come to part 6.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. I think that there was a misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Eccles and the Clerk. The Minister is entirely in order with how she intends to deal with the matter.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am sorry to hold the Minister up but, for my information, I take it that I shall not need to speak again later.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I am sure that such a brilliant contribution would be worth hearing twice anyway. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall come back to that.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that the debate has been interesting. It has shown the clear dividing lines between what we are trying to do as a Government to support economic development at national, regional and local levels, and the attitude of the Conservative party, which seems to be to ignore completely evidence about the need for intervention and strategic planning at the regional level. Conservative Members’ objections were, frankly, exposed as purely ideological and nothing to do with recognising that it is vital that the measures that we are taking are put into place, especially given the focus on the economic downturn. It was disappointing that the Liberal Democrats could not even make up their minds about what it was that they were trying to do, and just ended up saying, “Well, we sort of think that we might quite like this, but actually let us vote with the Conservatives and put an end to the real measures that we are trying to take in this Bill.”

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. For clarity, given that there was some confusion on Thursday and we have discovered another printing error, the Committee will definitely sit at Thursday morning at 9 o’clock. Hon. Members should also be reassured that they can leave their papers in the room, because the door will be locked. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.30 pm.