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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Amess. It has been useful to have a brief Second Reading-type excursion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon this morning. In a less elevated vein, before we rose on Tuesday evening, I attempted to take the same kind of tour in relation to the confusion of the architecture that we now see gradually revealed in the Bill. I shall not attempt to repeat the Second Reading observations on the clause, but I want to send a signal to the Minister about most of the remainder of the clauses in this part of the Bill. As I observed on Tuesday, they give considerable powers to the Secretary of State.

For example, under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to decide membership, voting powers, executive arrangements and so forth. I am fascinated by paragraph (f) of subsection (4), which refers to the

“disapplication of section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (duty to allocate seats to political groups)”.

That suggests either that the paragraph would disapply a duty to ensure political balance, or vice versa. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us on that point.

In summary, on most of the clauses—I shall have something more to say about one particular clause—we wish the Minister to persuade the Committee that the Secretary of State’s powers will be exercised responsibly and not in an onerous way. Who knows? The economic prosperity boards might in due course have the opportunity to take over more powers and become bottom-up bodies with real power and authority, rather than pieces of a confusing jigsaw, under what we hope is the forthcoming Conservative Government.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Amess. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, we are effectively discussing  the principles behind EPBs and how they will interact with the other arrangements. I agree entirely that although those of us on this side of the Committee have sought to use Divisions to indicate in detail our disapproval of certain aspects of the Bill, a key principle is at stake here. Is the case being made successfully for EPBs alongside the other arrangements we have discussed? I have explained that my party would prefer regions that make more sense to people, which might make EPBs unnecessary. Groups of local authorities coming together to form regions with RDAs that match those boundaries would be a better process, although as the Minister kindly pointed out, that would take some time.

With that in mind, we tabled a series of amendments, which of course were unselectable, calling for Divisions on individual clauses. Whether EPBs will make a useful contribution and whether they will cut across the work of regional bodies remains to be seen, but we look forward to hearing more from the Minister about that as we move through this part of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Wycombe discussed subsection (4)(f). I must confess that I had not picked up on that point, and I am glad that he raised it as it is a serious one that deals with an established practice that is a strength of local government. Of course, my party would like a slightly different electoral system, such as the one that they now have in Scotland, to allow local authorities to reflect the popular vote even more closely. However, even with our present system, it is important that all political groups and all views have the option to be represented in bodies formed. I have concerns about leaders’ boards from that point of view also. We must be careful in considering the EPBs.

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

I will address the issue of the Secretary of State’s role first. The Opposition document “Control Shift”, as the hon. Member for Wycombe and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, proposes a similar structure, and it also says that the Secretary of State would be able to grant it. There are important reasons for that, because it is about making sure that all local authorities have been properly involved in drawing up a scheme, that there is the ability to influence it and, therefore, that they have in a sense signed up for it—that the structure will work. That is why there is the ability to refer back to the Secretary of State, in a sense, for endorsement. It is also clear, as I said before, that we expect EPBs and combined authorities to be voluntary for local authorities. It is not about a local authority having to have one; it is about local authorities coming forward and saying, “We believe that this would be beneficial.”

On the point made about subsection (4)(f), political balance provisions that apply to local authorities will apply to EPBs; that is covered in schedule 6. However, those provisions do not apply to executives of local authorities, which are designed to be cabinet-type structures, so we have similarly provided for EPBs to operate with an executive that they choose. I hope that that is a helpful clarification and that the Committee will agree to the clause.