Clause 85
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
Public Bill Committees, 16 June 2009, 6:45 pm
Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Illsley. We now move to part 6 of the Bill entitled “Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities”. If someone was to read clause 85 on its own, rather than together with the other clauses governing conditions under which the proposed economic prosperity boards should be set up, they might conclude that, on paper, those boards look remarkably like the enterprise partnerships proposed in our Green Paper, “Control Shift”.
The conditions set out in clause 85 are essentially inoffensive on their own, and it would be out of order for me to delve too deeply into the other clauses that relate to economic prosperity boards. However, given that we are in the process of exploring those boards for the first time, it is important to say something generally about the centralised restrictions under which they will operate.
I will not go through the clauses in detail as that would be premature, but they make remarkable reading. The Secretary of State can establish the boards, set their voting powers, membership and voting weight, decide who is on them, dissolve or abolish them and revise their boundaries. Their functions are described in clause 88 only in the broadest possible terms, and there is also a question about funds. In short, we are where we have been often with the Bill, not so much with this clause—I concede—but with many other clauses that relate to economic prosperity boards. The great question is why so many of those clauses have to be on the statute book at all.
When we discussed clause 80 and new clause 14, I thought that we had a chance to reach a consensus and let the clause stand. I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it was not perfect to have power flowing down in that way rather than up, but it seemed that a compromise was possible. Sadly, that was not to be.
It is worth considering where the EPBs fit in to all the various schemes that have been proposed. As we go through the Bill clause by clause, we see Labour Members seeking ways to deal with the fact that elected regional authorities did not turn out to be a runner. The only proposal to date that went to the ballot box was defeated. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that that was not a vote against regional development in general—we will have to wait to read his memoirs to find out what he meant—but it was undoubtedly a defeat for that scheme.
When one considers the various devices proposed by the Government in the Bill, one can only conclude that, on the one hand, it is possible to have elected regional government controlled by elected people—not a policy with which we agree and we have never thought that it would work—or, on the other, we can have the type of bottom-up approach that we very nearly arrived at in new clause 14.
The Bill has a series of halfway houses that are extremely confusing. Alas, the economic prosperity boards are a part of that. We have spent most of the day debating the regional element of the Bill and the leaders’ boards that ultimately will not have power over RDAs. I await elucidation from the Minister, but it is far from clear to me how the boards, which, as I have said, would have the potential to be an enterprise partnership if clause 85 stood alone, are going to work in conjunction with the regional structures that the Government have set up elsewhere.
We have messy mechanisms: the stand-alone economic assessment; the multi-area agreements, which we will discuss later; and the peculiar conjunction of the regional structures that the Minister described. We also have, on the one hand, the leaders’ board and, on the other, the economic prosperity boards, which, one sees if one turns to a later clause, will deal expressly with economic development and regeneration.
Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)
Ah, yes, the right hon. Gentleman has been very energetic this afternoon.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
If I follow the hon. Gentleman, and he must correct me if I do not, he is not opposed to economic prosperity boards in principle, although he has expressed a lot of concerns about their mechanics. Indeed, when we debated new clause 14, he indicated that there might be a deal, and that if the Government accepted the new clause, the Opposition would be happy to support all of this part of the Bill.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
Perhaps I got the hon. Gentleman wrong on that, but he certainly has not suggested that he is opposed in principle to the concept of the boards, simply that he has anxieties about some of the details. Will he explain why the Opposition have not tabled a single amendment to this part of the Bill? The only amendment that is due to be debated has been tabled by two of my hon. Friends who, unfortunately, are not members of the Committee.
Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)
It is, indeed, unfortunate that they are not members of the Committee, but that is a mystery on which only the Whips can cast light.
In our debates on the previous part of the Bill, I said that if the Government had accepted the new clause, we would have had no problem with clause 85 on its own, which simply sets out the basic framework. The problem—I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to sit through this clause by clause—is the highly centralising power that nearly all the other clauses give to the Secretary of State. They seem to us so wretched as to be incapable of amendment.
However, I want to end on a point that will bring a little light and joy into the life of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. If the Minister can speak satisfactorily to this clause, which sets up the bare bones of economic prosperity boards, we will consider not dividing the Committee on it, which will be a rare occurrence in today’s proceedings.
Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. We have debated how real regions could be formed by the coming together of local authorities and the communities they represent to constitute a region. From that point of view, this offer might be an avenue for local authorities to come together and work in partnership to deliver some aspects of regional policy.
However, we have also debated the Government’s intentions on the wider issue of regions. They feel that the current government boundaries are right, and that is why I am not inclined to think that this is the start of something more meaningful. This idea is very much confined to one set of policies—indeed, the name “economic prosperity board” implies that it is confined to one, albeit important, aspect of policy—and it might conflict with the regional arrangements that are to be in place.
The duplication that the hon. Gentleman pointed out is a problem, as is the potential for confusion in people’s minds as to what an economic prosperity board does, when set against the regional arrangements that we have talked about. It would be far clearer to have a process that worked towards having meaningful regions. However, we have debated that and I shall not detain the Committee on it, although I still hold that view.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a few issues, the first of which concerns a point that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made. When we discussed regions, he pointed out how ludicrous it is that the south-east—taken together with the eastern region, I suppose—wraps around London, and he discussed whether it is possible to have meaningful discussion about the economy of the south-east, as it is currently constituted, without London being part of it. Subsection (4) takes the approach that it would be impossible to have that for an economic prosperity board, and that there could not be one local authority in the middle that is not part of something that goes around it. There is inconsistency in Government policy.
At the risk of showing my colours as a Cornish crusader, or whatever was said about that earlier, I have a query about subsection (7), which mentions “county council” and “district council”. Will the council of the Isles of Scilly be covered by that measure and be able to participate? Suppose that Cornwall wanted to take something forward; it is now a unitary authority, and it might not have community interests with Devon on some interests, but it might want to do some things with the council of the Isles of Scilly.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that the Opposition have tabled no amendments, but one amendment is supported by a number of Opposition names. It would leave the whole part out, and would mean debating whether economic prosperity boards are worth having. I think they could be, but only as part of a process that would take us towards getting the real regions that we want and that would allow for the bottom-up approach that we have debated in relation to other clauses. However, I am convinced that the Government do not want to take that approach, and that the boards are to be an extra body, alongside regional arrangements. I have real concerns about whether EPBs will be able to achieve what the Government want them to achieve.