Clause 75
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
6:00 pm

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 75, page 54, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 119, in clause 75, page 54, line 31, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 120, in clause 75, page 54, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

In the hope that we can move swiftly on, I will be brief. The amendments reflect our suspicion of the Secretary of State’s role in overriding what might have been agreed under arrangements already in place. We have said before that those arrangements are imperfect, but if we are to have a slightly more accountable system, we really prefer that it stand, rather than have the Secretary of State able to nitpick every revision made by regional bodies. It undermines the whole purpose of any form of regional government in which local government is involved if the Secretary of State can overrule it.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

We passed rather rapidly over the clause 74, which required the responsible regional authorities to take account of regional strategies in adjoining areas. In the event of the regional body approving a strategy that is completely in conflict with that of another region and that other region objecting strongly, the revisions that the hon. Gentleman is proposing leave no mechanism for resolution. Does he not recognise that there will be circumstances in which some sort of higher authority has to take a look at situations in which there is a conflict between the regional strategies prepared by different regions? Frankly, it is not satisfactory to remove the role of the Secretary of State without providing an alternative mechanism for resolving such disputes.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The preceding clause refers to the need for the responsible regional authorities to “have regard to” certain matters. If they do not have regard to the matters listed, we have a problem, because those strategies cannot come into force unless the regions get together and resolve the issue.

I am concerned about the fact that, as is often the case when discussing such matters, if there is a reserved power for a Secretary of State in a Bill, the Government say, “It will only be used very sparingly, and you must trust us that it is absolutely fine.” We tend to take a slightly more suspicious view, which is that the instincts of Government and Whitehall are not to be charitable when handed power, but to interfere more if the power is there for them to do so. I think that we differ in our view of how Government works.

The principle behind the amendments is to allow responsible regional authorities to make amendments to their strategy. I am mindful of the previous clause, which we did not oppose, and that there are other issues that need to be dealt with. However, we hope that it will not be for the Secretary of State to be involved with and sign off everything.

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

I can be brief because my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out one obvious scenario in which the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendment would be to remove the ability to sort out cases in which there were differences in regional strategies between regions. If, for example, the responsible regional authorities in one area do not agree, the Secretary of State needs to have this power, because it is important that there is an arbiter. Also, if any agreed strategy had completely ignored any of the priorities set out nationally—perhaps through this House—it is important for the Secretary of State to be able to intervene in those circumstances. That is why I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendments.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

One of the important reasons for tabling such amendments is to get clarification from the Minister on the record about the sort of circumstances in which the power would be used. We have done that and we are mindful that people will now have something to reflect back on in the future, and that, of course, any future Secretary of State can be reminded of what was said if the Bill comes into force. Although I am not entirely convinced that the power will always be used in the way that the Minister has set out, I hope that that is the case and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 75, page 54, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) If after proceedings under subsection (2)(b) the Secretary of State proposes to make any modifications to the draft they must publish—

(a) the changes proposed,

(b) the reasons for doing so.

(3A) Any person may make representations on the proposed changes.’.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in clause 75, page 54, line 44, at end insert

‘including the reasons for making any changes to the submitted draft revision.’.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I were discussing earlier the principle I was debating with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, which is that the Liberal Democrats seem to see the worst in central Government and the best in local government. When a party is in government, perhaps it tends to see things the other way around. The principle behind amendments 55 and 56 is to ensure that, where the Secretary of State has the power to approve or not approve draft provisions—we have moved on from the debate about whether or not the Secretary of State will have that power—and intervene in that way, the reasons behind his intervention and the type of changes that he wishes to make are published for consultation, so that Secretary of State must consult widely before taking any action that the Bill would allow him to take.

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

Again, I understand that the amendments may be probing. However, they are unnecessary because the Bill already requires that there is public consultation  before the Secretary of State finally approves the strategy and the responsible regional authorities publish it. It has become established practice to give reasons for any changes that are made to the draft strategies. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister sees that the principle behind the amendments follows on from the principle that we were debating earlier. We must ensure that every opportunity is given to members of the public to comment on revisions, which may well be significant. From the viewpoint of Whitehall, they may not seem highly significant, but a small revision to an overarching regional strategy could have huge consequences for a community or area and be a very contentious issue. We must therefore ensure that there is ample opportunity for people in such areas to comment on any revision to the strategy that may affect them greatly. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must accept the need for that consultation and seek to consult as widely as possible.

However, having received those assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.