Clause 69
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to make a few brief comments. We discussed on the previous clause the extent to which leaders’ boards and the indirectly elected representatives who, it now seems, will sit on them give a gloss of legitimacy to the work that the RDAs undertake. The clause reveals who actually is in charge. Although on earlier clauses we asked, “Is this really necessary?” the key question in the next few clauses is, “Who is in charge of the process?” The clause makes it clear that the RDA is the first among equals in the partnership between it and the leaders’ board because, if I understand the clause correctly, the leaders’ board can be suspended and, if that happens, the RDA stays in charge.

Our earlier amendments tried to firmly establish that even though the leaders’ boards were indirectly elected—we wanted to find ways to make them more directly and democratically representative and accountable—the responsible regional authority had some kind of democratic legitimacy and would not be overpowered by the RDA. Our main concern about the clause is that it will still give a huge amount of power to the RDA and undermine a clear chain of accountability.

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

I support the hon. Lady’s comments because this short clause seems to encapsulate a fundamental dichotomy between what the Minister says is its purpose, which is essentially to require the leaders’ boards and RDAs to act jointly, and its substance. Subsection (2) is effectively open-ended. It could give rise to an open-ended arrangement whereby a leaders’ board is unable to operate effectively for unspecified reasons, which may come to light and we may have more information about via regulation. We do not know on what basis that might happen—it might be a problem with a group on the board having an agenda over regional issues at variance with another group on the leaders’ board, or it might be a financial or organisational issue.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we highlighted in our discussion the need, wherever possible, to give discretion and freedom to local authorities to develop appropriate arrangements in their areas. The Government’s intention is that local authorities should have a good measure of discretion, within a framework that ensures that the new leaders’ boards work and that is subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is wrong, that there should be no such discretion and that there should be no scope to have different arrangements and, if necessary, to decide not to have a leaders’ board? If that happens, the means to continue the arrangements must be in place. Unless the regional development agency is in a suitable position, we could be in stasis. Does he recognise that the measure is a necessary safeguard against that?

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

The right hon. Gentleman makes some key philosophical points about the relationship between local and central Government, but that is not relevant to subsection (2).

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has got things the wrong way round. The previous clause requires leaders’ boards to be established and gives the Secretary of State the right not to go ahead with them. Whether or not they are established is within the gift of the Secretary of State, not the local authority.

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

The hon. Lady comes to my point before I do.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he does not wax lyrical about transport policy in Greater Manchester.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

That is my job.

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

It is the hon. Gentleman’s job, but perhaps not in this Committee. The issue is about the Secretary of State’s powers. The practical ramifications of the clause are that the Secretary of State could maintain an open-ended arrangement in which there was an RDA but no leaders’ board ad infinitum, thus subverting the democratic voice of local people. Incidentally, we would like to say on record that the regional assemblies do not get a mention—they are dead and buried in a schedule—so, in terms of democracy, they are gone. The subsection allows the Secretary of State, if he or she wishes, to have only the RDAs making decisions, and that situation could drag on.

The Royal Town Planning Institute in particular draws attention to the lack of a dispute resolution process. The Minister may say that that will be covered by regulations, and I will accept that in good faith. There may be contested policy positions that will not be improved if a leaders’ board is not in situ and the RDA is governing alone. There may be delay and deadlock as a result.

Ian Stewart (Eccles, Labour)

I point out that there are integrated transport issues in the Bill.

I am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s line. First, he put it to the Committee that leaders’ boards may not go ahead by local decision, and he then accepted an intervention from the Liberal Front-Bench spokesperson who said that the decision-making power was with the Secretary of State. How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those two positions?

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

I am merely reading the relevant subsection. If there is any inconsistency in the argument, it is in the drafting of the Bill and this clause in particular. I hope the Minister will clarify the situation; but as it stands, we have serious concerns.

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

Clause 69 identifies the responsible regional authorities referred to throughout the remainder of this part of the Bill as the regional development agency and the leaders’ board for the region. Subsection (2) is quite explanatory. It states that

“if during any period after the coming into force of this section there is no leaders’ board for a region”—

for example, if the local authorities cannot agree on the constitution of a leaders’ board, or if nobody in the region wants to participate—the responsible regional authority will be the RDA on its own. We do not want that to happen—we want leaders’ boards to be properly constituted—but we have to plan for an eventuality where the leaders’ board breaks down or has not been properly constituted, to ensure there would be a responsible regional authority in the area. There is nothing sinister about that; it is a fail-safe in the Bill for the reasons that I have set out. That is why I urge the Committee to support clause 69.