Clause 71
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm

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

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 71, page 52, line 21, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 111, in clause 71, page 52, line 21, leave out subsection (4).

Clause stand part.

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

I am glad that there is some consensus among Opposition Members about the aspect of the Bill that deals with review and revision by responsible regional authorities. At the risk of being repetitious, I believe that the clause exemplifies the over-mighty powers of the Secretary of State, especially subsections (4) and (5). That is why I will be speaking primarily to our amendments dealing with those subsections, and supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment to remove one of them, as well as discussing clause stand part. We believe that if the subsections remain, they will invalidate the whole clause.

The clause demonstrates an underlying distrust in local authorities, which are closer to changes and variations in local economies, industry, demographic factors, society and so on than regional bodies are. Once again, the central tenet, as advanced by Ministers, that the Bill is all about sharing power and devolving it from the top down, is undermined. The philosophy that the Bill is all about local people and decisions—it was advanced strongly by the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), whom we miss already—is barely credible.

We know that the Government missed an opportunity last July to put flesh on the bones of community empowerment, which is nowhere contained in the Bill, but the clause shows that the Secretary of State wants to be involved in the minutiae and to reach into every nook and cranny of local decision making, particularly in the area of directions such as draft revision and the direction under subsection (5) about the timetable and its content. In our opinion, a generic template or format will be rolled out across the country, with the ultimate power in Whitehall, and diversity of provision, ideas and local decision making will be cast to one side. For those reasons, we will vote for our amendment and that of the Liberal Democrats, and we will vote against clause stand part.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Our two amendments are very similar and raise essentially the same question: once again, who is in charge of the revision process? It is clear from the clause—particularly from subsection (4), which the amendments would delete—that the Secretary of State can reserve the right to require changes at any time that he or she feels appropriate, and can direct the responsible regional authority to do so.

It is clear that the Secretary of State can initiate a review. What I am not as clear about is which half—whether it is either, one or both—can initiate a review of the regional strategy. Under the previous clause, the responsible  regional authority is made up of the regional development agency and the leaders’ board. We know from clause 71 that the responsible regional authorities may prepare a draft revision. Must any revision by agreed by both the leaders’ board and the regional development agency before the revision can go ahead? Can one of them veto it? If the regional development agency wanted to revise its strategy and the leaders’ board said no, who would win that debate? The clause is not at all clear on that.

To understand the power relationship between the leaders’ board and the regional development agency, it is important to understand exactly how the process would work. We are concerned about the extent of the powers that are being withheld, and held instead by the Secretary of State, but we also want to understand exactly what the relationship would be at the level of the responsible regional authority.

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

The hon. Lady touches on an important point. Clause 71(2) effectively gives the Secretary of State a double lock, because the Secretary of State has that power and also has indirect power, having appointed the RDA. Notwithstanding that it might not even have been constituted by that time, under the previous clause, the leaders’ board can be outvoted, but its members are the elected people and they are closer to the action when it comes to revising regional strategies.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. Again, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the title of the Bill, which is supposed to be about local democracy. This measure exposes, again, that more powers are being retained and kept within the gift of the Secretary of State than are being held by people who are directly democratically accountable for their decisions. The measure is another example of the Government talking the talk—saying that they want to improve participation and accountability—but not walking the walk.

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

The clause addresses the issues that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised when he talked about how long particular strategies would last. He noted that circumstances might change, and that is exactly why the clause is in the Bill. It allows the responsible authority to say, “We believe it is expedient to revise the strategies that we have at the moment,” so it addresses his previous point. I am therefore slightly confused as to why the Opposition want to take this clause out.

David Curry (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

On clause 71(4)(a), I presume, then, that rules and regulations will specify when the regional body, rather than the Secretary of State, can decide to make a revision. Is that the point of that measure? Of the two parts to this clause, does one provide for the initiative to come from the regional body, and the other for it to come from the Secretary of State? Have I read it correctly?

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

Subsection (4)(a) is saying that, after consultation, we will set out in regulations where there might be appropriate points for the Secretary of State to say that there should be revisions. Subsection (2) sets out our belief that the responsible authorities should  have the power to revise something if they feel that that is right. Over and above that, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, yes, we would want the leaders’ board and the RDA to trigger a revision jointly, but where there is disagreement, and one body does not believe that it should be revised, the fall-back is in subsections (4) and (5), which the Opposition are trying to remove. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments and to vote for the clause, which builds into the whole process many of the points that have been raised. [Interruption.]

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

I was stunned by the eloquence, charm and wit of the Minister, Mr. Illsley—[Interruption.]—but, unfortunately, not by the content of what she said. She and I are seeing a lot of each other this week, as we debated the much less interesting topic of business rates last night.

My final point is that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about the imbalance between the respective centres of power. Earlier, we heard about the Lilley lacuna. We also have the Goldsworthy lacuna—

David Curry (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

The Goldsworthy gap.

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

The Goldsworthy gap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon helps me out in his customary way. There is an imbalance between the respective centres of power of the RDA, the Secretary of State and the leaders’ board.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

From the Minister’s explanation, the situation is worse than I had feared. It seems as if the regional development agency and the leaders’ board could say that they do not want a revision, and the Secretary of State can impose one. Perhaps the leaders’ board will say that it does not want one, and the RDA will say that it does, and the Secretary of State can still impose it. The presumption is always in favour of a revision, which it seems will always be within the power of the Secretary of State.

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

Exactly. Let me make a tangible contribution by way of an example. Suppose there was a west midlands regional strategy in an area where there were going to be significant job losses in the future at an important regional employer, such as in automotive engineering or the manufacturing industry. The leaders’ board might consider that regional strategy worthy of a rewrite and a significant revision, in order to take into account the economic, social and demographic factors consequent to that significant macro-economic change, which had perhaps involved the loss of 5,000 or 6,000 jobs. The Secretary of State, working with the regional development agency in the west midlands, might decide that that rewrite was not appropriate and that there were other priorities. The Conservative party believes that the important flexibility is not built into the clause. For that reason, we are not minded to support it.