Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 159, in clause 120, page 75, line 18, leave out from first ‘state’ to end of line 28.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 160, in clause 120, page 75, line 31, leave out from ‘nature’ to end of line 38.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

We have had an interesting discussion about what constitutes a local authority. We now move on to discuss what constitutes a partner authority. The amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, relate to the role of the Secretary of State as a partner authority under subsection (4)(j), and the Secretary of State’s ability to add or remove organisations that may constitute a partner authority under subsection (5). The amendments seek to do two things.

Subsection (4) specifies a number of persons or organisations that are defined as partner authorities under subsection (1), but none of those listed in subsection (4) are directly democratically accountable except the Secretary of State. Subsection (1)(a) clearly states that a partner authority is

“any person...where the whole or any part of the area for which the person acts or is established coincides with or falls within that area”.

However, subsection (4)(j) specifies only limited areas in which the Secretary of State is considered to be a partner authority in relation to multi-area agreements.

Our argument is that if the Secretary of State is to be a partner authority, he or she should be a partner authority in other respects, not only in those limited ones. I realise that it is not the Secretary of State in person, but anyone who represents that office. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the matter, but if the Secretary of State is to be a partner authority it should not be confined or limited as set out in subsection (4).

In subsection (5), we can see that the list in the previous subsection might not be exhaustive, and that there might be some justification for extending it. We are concerned that subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State the power to include or exclude whoever he or she wants, whenever he or she wants. Although it might be appropriate to add bodies, we would not want the Secretary of State to be able to remove bodies just as easily. The two amendments, therefore, would confine and restrict the significant power of the Secretary of State. There is a more level playing field if everyone has equal roles and responsibilities in working together in a multi-area agreement.

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

Clause 120 lists the partner authorities for the purposes of MAAs with duties. That list is the same as the list of partner authorities for local area agreements set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Heath Act 2007. If, as has been requested by local government, we are going to put MAAs on a similar statutory footing to LAAs, it is obviously appropriate that the lists of partners are consistent. Amendment 159 would remove reference to the functions of the Secretary of State that are carried out by Jobcentre Plus, the Highways Agency and the probation service. That would have the effect of making the Secretary of State a partner authority for all purposes. I think that that relates to some previous amendments, as perhaps the hon. Lady has said, which were tabled out of a concern about the statutory role of the Secretary of State in the approval of MAAs. There is, therefore, a problem with the amendment.

Amendment 160 would prevent the Secretary of State from removing bodies from the list of partner authorities. The problem with that is that it would prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to take account of changes in the machinery of government, and from keeping the list up to date. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Although I do not intend to press the amendments, I am not entirely sure whether the Minister has answered all the questions that the amendments raise. She seems perfectly happy for the responsibilities of all the other authorities listed in subsection (4) to be covered by the definition in subsection (1):

“the whole or any part of the area for which the person acts or is established coincides with or falls within that area”.

If that definition of the extent of responsibilities is good enough for every other body listed in subsection (4), why is it not good enough for the Secretary of State? Why is it not clear enough? I do not think that the Minister has answered that question.

The issue of the ability to amend the list goes back to the Minister’s assumption that the Government will always act in the best interests. Although I can, of course, envisage circumstances in which bodies are disbanded or new ones are created and the list needs to be amended, subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to not only remove authorities that no longer exist but to remove authorities that it might not be convenient or expedient to have on the list. I wonder why the list cannot simply be amended by regulation, so that there is an opportunity for scrutiny of what is on the list, rather than by order of the Secretary of State. I remain concerned about those two issues, but given what we have to get through today it might take too much time to press the amendments.

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

To give one final reassurance, I must say that the power to remove bodies from the list is exercisable by order. It is subject to parliamentary control and must follow consultation. It cannot be used lightly, without coming back to Parliament.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

The Committee will know that my worries come from the actions of a group of authorities. They could be operating under a multi-area agreement, and have predatory intentions outside their area that will affect another local authority. My two concerns might be relevant to the clause, but they arise from a lack of clarity under clause 118, which states that a multi-area agreement

“specifies improvement targets for that area.”

However, if the authorities are achieving improvements in, say, Luton, by building houses in north Hertfordshire, what happens then? Can the Minister, under the clause, require them to include north Herts in the multi-area agreement so that the local authority that is being impinged upon in the pursuit of a target, which does not relate to it but is the housing target for Luton and south Bedfordshire, will be included in the multi-area agreement?

In the rather sinister goings on between Luton and south Bedfordshire to specify an area for building in north Herts, a meeting took place involving Luton council, South Bedfordshire council, the Minister’s Department—before she was in office—and a private developer. A development agency can be a party to a multi-area agreement, but will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear beyond peradventure that a private developer cannot be part of the agreement or party to an authority or document seeking to improve Luton by building in Hertfordshire? All hon. Members can think of parallel circumstances that might affect their constituencies, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.

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

Private developers would not be part of a multi-area agreement; which authorities can be part is set out clearly. The whole concept of a multi-area agreement is that different authorities sign up and agree to the targets. Local authorities have said to us that they want a similar process to local area agreements because that would mean a stronger statutory basis for operating the multi-area agreement.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is endeavouring to be helpful and positive. Clause 118 states:

“specifies improvement targets for that area”,

rather than “in” that area. Given that the courts take into account what Ministers say, will she make it clear that this is meant to apply to targets for and in the area of the local authorities—not just for an area—but achieved by actions taking place outside the area?

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

I would be extremely surprised if the targets not owned by local authorities in an area could somehow apply outside an area. I suspect that the drafting was carried out on legal advice.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I rise merely to raise a speculative point that will create an almost impossible difficulty for the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. If the multi-area agreement was to produce a target for improving air quality, it would be completely impossible to define the way to achieve that target so that it related only to the area of the authorities making the agreement, because the very nature of the target would have wider  implications. That is why it is not wise for us to be unduly prescriptive in seeking to define the role of a multi-area agreement. I hear exactly the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Multi-area agreements will not necessarily be concerned solely with housing. They could be concerned with a number of other provisions, such as air quality, for which there would be an obvious intellectual difficulty in coming up with the formulation that he is pressing towards.

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

On the north Herts scenario, I re-emphasise that north Herts would agree to a target only if it was happy with it. The target that it signs up to must apply to its functions; and it is not bound to any target if it does not sign up for it. I hope that that is helpful.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

In fact, it undoes some of the good that the Minister was doing earlier. The point is not that north Herts has signed up to the Luton housing target—a target imposed on Luton and south Beds by central Government. They are trying to fulfil their target, for their area, by building outside the area. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich supposed that that could be a problem in respect of other functions. What if Greenwich were to try to improve the quality of air in Greenwich—in my experience, of a high calibre already—by building a waste-disposal plant in someone else’s constituency, so that all the fumes from the waste processes in Greenwich were disseminated in Bromley, say? Would that be within the powers established by the Bill for a multi-area agreement, in a case where Bromley is not part of that agreement?