Clause 121
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
10:00 am

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 121, page 76, line 10, leave out from ‘may’ to end of line 12 and insert

‘notify the Secretary of State of their intention to establish a multi-area agreement.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 162, in clause 121, page 76, line 19, leave out ‘request’ and insert ‘notification’.

Amendment 163, in clause 121, page 76, line 20, leave out ‘request’ and insert ‘notification’.

Amendment 164, in clause 121, page 76, line 24, leave out ‘request’ and insert ‘notification’.

Amendment 165, in clause 122, page 76, line 27, leave out subsection (1).

Amendment 166, in clause 122, page 76, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 92, in clause 123, page 77, line 2, leave out from ‘agreement’ to ‘the’ in line 3.

Amendment 93, in clause 124, page 77, line 26, leave out ‘Secretary of State approves’ and insert ‘local authorities and partner authorities approve’.

Amendment 94, in clause 124, page 77, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 95, in clause 124, page 77, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 96, in clause 125, page 77, line 35, leave out subsection (1).

Amendment 97, in clause 129, page 79, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Although the amendments have been grouped with clause 121, they relate right the way through clauses 121 to 129. Considering them together is logical, because the next part of the Bill seeks to set out the mechanics of how multi-area agreements work: how they are initiated, how the proposals move forward, and how they are prepared, approved, submitted and revised.

In the Minister’s earlier remarks on multi-area agreements, she spoke of local authorities’ demand that multi-area agreements be put on a statutory footing. However, what concerns we Liberal Democrats is not only that almost every stage of the progress of multi-area agreements—their initiation, proposal, preparation, approval, revision and submission—is dependent on the Secretary of State’s approval, but that every stage could be initiated by direction of the Secretary of the State. It is difficult for the process to be purely bottom-up if, at every stage, the Secretary of State can direct a multi-area agreement to be revised, initiated or proposed. That concerns us greatly, because it could undermine what, according to the Minister, multi-area agreements are there to achieve, which is to allow local authorities to work together. They are not there to allow groups of local authorities to work together under the direction of the Secretary of State.

Our proposals would allow local authorities to notify the Secretary of State of their intention to put forward a multi-area agreement, rather saying to the Secretary of State that they would like to do so. The amendments put all the power firmly in the hands of the local authorities that will be delivering the multi-area agreements, rather than in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is the principle we are seeking to establish. We are trying to establish a clear, bottom-up process, rather than the top-down one that we fear is being perpetuated through these clauses.

David Curry (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

I am afraid that I am going to start to sound like an old Stalinist—

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

Never!

David Curry (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

Perhaps I used to be a young Stalinist.

In terms of aspiration, what the Liberal Democrats are doing is remarkable. In terms of practicality, I do not think a great deal of it. Frankly, multi-area agreements are often brokered by Government offices, which play a huge part in their development. The powers of the Secretary of State often give a sort of back-stop to the agreements for local authorities. I suspect that local authorities would not welcome a provision that cut them loose so dramatically from the Secretary of State, not least because he is a participator in multi-area agreements. I admire the optimism behind the proposals, but in the real world local authorities are not unhappy with such tutelage, and in many respects need it. The  Secretary of State and his powers are part of multi-area agreements. Obviously, those agreements that are going to have a statutory power—multi-area agreements with attitude—need the Secretary of State to be welded into this process. As always, the key is how the Secretary of State exercises the powers.

The history of multi-area agreements is not bad. A series of them have been signed in south Yorkshire and in Lancashire, for example. The representations I have received show that people are happy with the process and are quite optimistic. As I said, given that there are so many participants—including a significant number who are not directly democratically accountable—the big issue is how the citizen can find a way in and feel that their voice is being heard in the extraordinarily complex landscape we are developing.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

I cannot but observe that the right hon. Gentleman has said something with which I wholly concur. The hon. Member for Wycombe may wish to recall our debate last week, in which I was categorised not quite as a Stalinist, but as someone who advocates a little helpful hand on the tiller from Government to achieve results that local authorities might not achieve by themselves. I wholly concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, in which he advocated a little helpful hand on the tiller from central Government to assist local authorities. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe will reflect that, far from there being a major divide on this issue, the right hon. Gentleman’s view is almost entirely in agreement with mine.

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

Let me say just two things. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon are exactly right.

I confirm that the Secretary of State’s power of direction is just a formal mechanism that acts as a trigger for the duty for local authorities and partner authorities to co-operate in determining the improvement targets to be set out in the draft agreement. The Secretary of State can issue the direction only if it is requested by the local authorities for the proposed area. The process is still voluntary at its inception. Local authorities do not have to go down the route of an MAA with duties if they do not want to. They can still choose a non-statutory MAA as an alternative. The process is entirely a response to local authorities’ wish to have this power. As I said, it is necessary to have a mechanism that involves the Secretary of State to trigger to the duties. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has just said that the Secretary of State’s direction can come only following a request from local authorities, but the powers in these clauses presumably also allow the Secretary of State not to make a direction following a request. The Secretary of State says that the process is nothing but a formality and that these are the words that we need to ensure that what local authorities want will happen, but that formality perhaps gives an important and clear statement of who is in control.

We had some interesting contributions from what may described as the worshipful company of previous Local Government Ministers. That provides an interesting  insight into what we have not had in the debate—a contribution by former councillors. What we are seeing is the perspective of those who have been Ministers—they may also have been councillors—and who have signed the directions.

The Minister says that the process is a formality, but the amendments would say that the Secretary of State must be involved only on an equal footing. However, the powers that are being reserved are not equal, and there is ultimately a lot in the gift of the Secretary of State.

The fact that the hon. Member for Wycombe did not speak perhaps implies that, despite the language in “Control Shift”, his sympathies lie more with the contribution made by the former Minister. However, we are still very much “control-alt-delete”, rather than “Control Shift”. For that reason, I will press amendment 161.

David Curry (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I just wish to point out that neither Whip was present in the room until very recently and that we have made astonishing progress in their absence. Perhaps the Government Whip might consider withdrawing to facilitate our continued progress.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order, but he has amused us.