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

We see no difficulty with multi-area agreements, which are a good thing in principle. In the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield needed to be convinced that this clause and the following clauses would not simply impose improvement targets on those who signed up to multi-area agreements. The note that I have in my almost illegible handwriting says, “See Andrews’ reassurances”, which suggests that Baroness Andrews was able to give my noble Friend the reassurances that he sought. Again, however, it would be useful to the Committee if the Minister spelt out some reassurances.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this lovely weather, Mr. Amess.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is genuine agreement that multi-area agreements are a good thing. Once again, however, we return to the question of whether it is necessary to make provision for them in primary legislation. Considerable powers are reserved to the Secretary of State in subsequent clauses on multi-area agreements, and we should question whether that is necessary to enable local authorities to work together to achieve improvements in public services in their areas.

I may refer to this later, but in an interview in yesterday’s Guardian, the new Secretary of State referred to exploring the possibility of new powers, with a legally enforceable charter under which local authorities would have the right to refuse to have the Secretary of State’s views imposed on them. Most of the Bill could fall into the category where local authorities might say, “Actually, we think that this is an imposition of your powers, which is completely unnecessary.” They would then have the opportunity to refuse to implement it.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

It strikes me that we would rather the Secretary of State had virtually no control over issues that really are for decision by local government. With regard to the paper that has been mentioned a few times, it is fair to say that we prefer “control delete” to “Control Shift”.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

That was an amusing intervention from my hon. Friend. It is clear that, while we have been debating the Bill, there have been considerable changes—not only to the Secretary of State responsible for such matters, but to Ministers. I congratulate the new Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury—I understand that she has been moved in the past 24 hours. I wonder whether Ministers, Departments and their policies are moving beyond that paper. Will the Minister responsible respond to that? More generally, how do the powers that the Secretary of State mentioned in the newspaper yesterday relate to multi-area agreements?

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

Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read the article that the hon. Lady refers to, but I can reassure the Committee, because there is a recognition that local authorities have asked for more robust multi-area  agreements so that duties are placed on partner authorities. The vivid illustration that I asked for yesterday when discussing the matter with officials was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. His point was that if there is a desire in North Yorkshire for the authorities to come together—perhaps in a multi-area agreement—there may be a need to sign up the regional development agency. The idea was that, within that multi-area agreement, duties would need to be fulfilled. Local authorities consider that that gives more reassurance, when putting together plans for future economic development, that they have an agreement that needs to be fulfilled by the various different bodies.

I should like to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and the hon. Member for Wycombe. This is not about imposing targets—every authority or partner to whom a target relates must agree to that target for it to apply to them. We are trying to achieve a consensus about working together, while responding to the points that local authorities have made about proper backing through duties being appropriate for them. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

I want to make a pedantic point. Since I do not understand any of this new jargon, I have tried to look it up to see what it means and to find out what a multi-area agreement is. Clause 134 says that a

“‘multi-area agreement’ has the meaning given by section 118(2)”.

I went back to the first mention of it, to find that the provision says that a multi-area agreement is a document that “covers an area” and specifies targets. It does not say who it is an agreement between. It could be an agreement between you and me, Mr. Amess. I take it that it is meant to be an agreement between local authorities, although the Bill does not say so.

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

Yes it does.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

Where—in clause 118(2)?

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

In clause 118(2)(a).

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

No, clause 118(2)(a) says, “covers an area”. We could make an agreement about Essex or Hertfordshire—or something like that, but that is the area that we cover—and we could set targets, although they would not apply unless the person to whom they should apply agreed, as a later clause says. The Bill should spell out the sort of people between whom such agreements should be made. The drafting is sloppy.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

It might help if I provide the Committee with a little background to the evolution of the local area agreement concept, which preceded multi-area agreements and had a similar objective. They evolved in discussions between the Local Government Association and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which then had a different name.

The agreements were concerned with providing maximum flexibility to local authorities and their local partners in developing targets for improving people’s living standards, whether in economic, environmental or social well-being terms. The obvious weakness of that mode, which  nevertheless was welcomed by all concerned, was that it applied only to one area, and the whole purpose of multi-area agreements is to apply the same flexibility to a wider area, thus embracing a number of different authorities.

On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, in my borough of Greenwich, we are in discussion with the four other neighbouring Olympic authorities to reach a multi-area agreement with the objective of delivering—for the people of Greenwich, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Hackney—improved outputs in relation to some of the great priorities facing those areas. In particular, it would improve employment prospects, tackle problems of joblessness and improve housing conditions. It would also bring improvements to the public realm.

Those are admirable objectives, but they embrace a huge number of possible options and partners. The negotiations on the local area agreement—or multi-area agreement, in the case of the five Olympic boroughs—are progressing, but the process is not easy; it is complex and involves many potential players. That might explain why it is not possible to be too prescriptive in legislation about the precise nature of the agreements and partners. That could prove restrictive.

Much of the debate in Committee has been about how far local government should enjoy greater flexibility and freedom to develop objectives that local authorities think appropriate, and the multi-area agreement concept will make a major contribution to that. I would therefore counsel the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden not to seek too tight a definition. That might work against the objective of allowing flexibility for local authorities and their partners to evolve appropriate multi-area agreements.