New Clause 1 — Proposals by local authorities

Orders of the Day – in the House of Commons at 12:15 pm on 15 June 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

'(1) The Secretary of State must invite local authorities to make proposals which they consider would contribute to promoting the sustainability of local communities.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a proposal may include a request for a transfer of functions from one person to another.

(3) A local authority may not include a request under subsection (2) unless it has consulted—

(a) the person whose functions it relates to, and

(b) the person to whom the local authority considers the functions should be transferred.

(4) A local authority must have regard to the matters specified in the Schedule before making a proposal.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue the first invitation under this section within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2— Decision on short-list—

'(1) Before inviting proposals under section [Proposals by local authorities], the Secretary of State must appoint a person (the "selector") to consider the proposals and, in co-operation with the Secretary of State, draw up a short-list of proposals in accordance with regulations under section [Proposals: regulations].

(2) The selector must be a person who represents the interests of local authorities.

(3) On receiving the short-list from the selector, the Secretary of State must decide which, if any, of the proposals on the short-list should be implemented.

(4) Before making a decision under subsection (3) the Secretary of State must consult the selector and try to reach agreement.'.

Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), leave out 'if any'.

New clause 3— Action plans—

'(1) The Secretary of State must publish—

(a) the decision under section [Decision on short-list](3) and the reasons for it, and

(b) with the decision, a statement of the action the Secretary of State proposes to take with a view to the implementation of any proposal.

(2) A statement published under subsection (1)(b) is referred to in this section as an action plan.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report, describing the progress which has been made in relation to any action plan, within the period of one year following the publication of the action plan and at intervals of not more than one year thereafter.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to an action plan if the action plan has been implemented.'.

New clause 4— Proposals: regulations—

'(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations about the procedure to be followed in relation to proposals under section [Proposals by local authorities].

(2) Before making regulations the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the selector, and

(b) such other persons who represent the interests of local authorities as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(3) Regulations may, in particular—

(a) specify, or authorise the selector to specify, steps to be taken by a local authority before making proposals;

(b) specify steps to be taken by the selector in considering the proposals and drawing up a short-list;

(c) require the selector to prepare, and give to the Secretary of State, a report on the proposals.

(4) Regulations must—

(a) require a local authority, before making any proposal under section [Proposals by local authorities], either—

(i) to establish a panel of representatives of local persons and consult it about the proposal, or

(ii) to consult representatives of local persons in accordance with another enactment mentioned in the regulations (and an enactment that has not yet come into force for other purposes is deemed to have come into force for the purposes of the regulations),

(b) require a local authority to try to reach agreement about proposals with the panel or other persons consulted under paragraph (a), and

(c) require a local authority to have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (5).

(5) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities about making proposals, which—

(a) must include guidance about the inclusion among representatives of local persons (for the purposes of subsection (4)(a)(i) or (ii)) of persons from under-represented groups,

(b) may include other guidance about establishing and consulting a panel of representatives of local persons, and

(6) Before issuing or revising guidance under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local authorities, or

(b) persons who represent the interests of local authorities.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (2) or (6) any consultation undertaken before the day on which this Act is passed is as effective as it would have been if undertaken after that day.

(8) In this section—

"local person" means, in relation to a proposal by a local authority under section [Proposals by local authorities], a person who is likely to be affected by, or interested in, the proposal;

"panel" means a panel constituted in accordance with regulations;

"representative" means, in relation to local persons, a person who appears to the local authority to be representative of the local persons;

"under-represented groups" has the meaning given by regulations.

(9) Regulations under this section—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (4)(a)(i), after 'establish', insert 'or recognise'.

Amendment (c) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (4)(a), leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Amendment No. 3, page 1, line 9, clause 1, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 4, page 2, line 1, leave out Clause 2.

Amendment No. 5, page 2, line 2, clause 2, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 6, page 2, line 8, clause 2, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 7, page 2, line 13, clause 2, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 8, page 2, line 25, clause 2, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 9, page 2, line 42, clause 2, leave out 'principal councils' and insert 'local authorities'.

Amendment No. 10, page 3, line 4, leave out clause 3.

Amendment No. 11, page 3, line 5, clause 3, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 12, page 3, line 10, clause 3, leave out 'principal council's' and insert 'local authority's'.

Amendment No. 14, page 3, line 17, clause 3, leave out 'council's' and insert 'authority's'.

Amendment No. 15, page 3, line 28, clause 3, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 16, page 3, line 34, clause 3, leave out 'council' and insert 'authority'.

Amendment No. 17, page 3, line 37, clause 3, leave out 'council's' and insert 'authority's'.

Amendment No. 18, page 3, line 41, clause 3, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 20, page 3, line 44, clause 3, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 21, page 4, line 10, clause 4, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 26, page 4, line 31, clause 5, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 27, page 4, line 33, clause 5, leave out 'council' and insert 'authority'.

Amendment No. 28, page 4, line 35, clause 5, leave out 'council' and insert 'authority'.

Amendment No. 29, page 4, line 36, clause 5, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 30, page 4, line 41, clause 5, leave out 'council' and insert 'authority'.

Amendment No. 31, page 4, line 42, clause 5, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 32, page 5, line 4, clause 5, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 33, page 5, line 7, clause 5, leave out 'council' and insert 'authority'.

Amendment No. 34, page 5, line 12, clause 5, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 35, page 5, line 20, clause 6, leave out from 'means' to end of line 21 and insert

'a county council in England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;'.

Amendment No. 36, page 5, clause 6, leave out lines 22 to 27.

Amendment No. 37, page 5, clause 6, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Amendment No. 39, page 7, line 3 of the schedule, leave out 'indicators' and insert 'matters'.

Amendment No. 40, page 7, line 3 of the schedule, leave out 'indicators referred to in section 2' and insert

'matters referred to in section [Proposals by local authorities]'.

Amendment No. 41, page 7, line 10 of the schedule, leave out 'principal council' and insert 'local authority'.

Amendment No. 43, page 7, line 28 of the schedule, leave out paragraph (j).

Amendment No. 42, in title, line 1, leave out from 'provision' to 'and' in line 8 and insert

'about promoting the sustainability of local communities;'.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I will not repeat myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you would not allow me to anyway. I am grateful to you for allowing such latitude in the debate on the new clause 6, which is the other side of the coin to new clauses 1 and 2. I shall just take the opportunity to put on the record some information that I hope will be beneficial to the House.

First, I will talk about the words, "if any", which would be omitted by amendment (a) to new clause 2, which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood tabled. I will not make a big fuss about the issue. The formal situation is that the original drafting included the words "if any", which presented the Government with a problem because it meant that there was compulsion on the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman may argue that that is a jolly good thing, and in some circumstances I could see myself arguing that. However, as I asked my colleagues for their views on the matter, there has been a change, namely the insertion in new clause 2 of "co-operation".

I have listened to the argument, and do not want to make a big thing about the issue. I would prefer that the amendment not be made, because it is not necessary, and it ties the Secretary of State down. The argument has moved on and I would be interested to hear what the intention behind the amendment is. I hope that that helps.

I give the assurance that the Government are not looking for a get-out. We want the process to work, and we want the proposals that come from the action plan and the selector to be workable. Including a requirement for co-operation in the production of the shortlist would make it most likely that the proposals made were workable. It is difficult to envisage a situation in which any Government presented with a shortlist of high-quality consensual proposals would simply turn them all down. There may be circumstances in which that would happen, but it would be a foolish Government who did that. From time to time, we have had foolish Governments, but that is not the case at the moment, of course.

The clause is drafted as it is simply to ensure that if at any point the selector produces a shortlist that does not contain proposals that could be implemented, the Secretary of State would not be required to implement them. As I say, the change made by introducing the word "co-operation" is important. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill places little restriction on the selector in terms of how they arrive at a shortlist, what is on it, and how proposals are presented to the Secretary of State. There could be a shortlist of one, although I do not imagine that that would be the case, or the shortlist could contain only proposals that would be very expensive to implement or that conflicted in a significant way with a Government's manifesto policy. However, I cannot foresee that situation occurring, because of the relationships that exist between central and local government, which are broadly good at the moment. We have a very good working relationship with the Local Government Association—it might in time break down, but I hope not. The arguments are valid, but on balance I would not go to the wall on them, particularly, as I say, because of that co-operation.

I have explained to the House my objectives in new clause 1 and how I think they will strengthen the Bill. The requirement on the Secretary of State—the word used is "must"—to invite local authorities to make proposals is covered by new clause1. I do not intend to go into the detail of the proposal, as we have already discussed it at great length. I draw the attention of the House to new clause 1 to show how it fits into the narrative.

Just as local people and councillors are being given new rights and new powers, so too should local authorities be given new rights and new powers to make proposals. The clause provides the reassurances that local partners will need. A local body—the highways authority has been used as an example—has a right to be consulted about a proposal to change its function. As I have said before, that right to be consulted is more likely to lead to the outcome that we seek. Subsection (5) sets a timetable of one year, and I have explained why that is the case.

There is no limit on the number of proposals on the shortlist. The proposals from local authorities would go to the selector. I shall repeat an assurance, for the avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of the House and those listening—I am reminded that obscure though the debates on a Friday often are, on this occasion my words are being listened to and read very carefully. Last night my answering machine was full of messages of encouragement, such as, "Don't back down, you so-and-so." It is amazing how cynical some people can be. The industrial language used by some of them was fluent, and those were just the members of the Labour party. I paid particular attention to the 100-plus letters that I received from the fine people of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, who are the finest in the nation, and the most important newspaper on planet Earth, the Oldham Evening Chronicle , is watching and listening closely. I repeat: there is no intention to water down the measure.

The provision in new clause 2 for us to appoint a selector gives reassurance and establishes a sensible process. We are talking to the Local Government Association about the matter. Letters of support have no doubt been received by hon. Members across the House. We want the proposals to be workable, and it is desirable that we help to strengthen the LGA as well.

New clause 2 as drafted states:

"On receiving the short-list from the selector, the Secretary of State must decide which, if any, of the proposals on the short-list should be implemented."

She or he

"must consult the selector and try to reach agreement."

That is enshrined in the proposals. The narrative of the Bill is built on that.

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I ask him a small favour? Between now and the Bill reaching completion in another place, will he give further thought to the name that he has chosen—the selector? It is an awful description. Would not community secretary or community officer be better?

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I am sorry, but I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. If he has one, I invite him to put it forward.

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

Community officer or community secretary.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government 12:30, 15 June 2007

I have carried out extensive and comprehensive consultation across the Houses of Parliament in the past five seconds, and although early indications show that the right hon. Gentleman has a point about the word "selector", I am not sure whether his suggestion is better. We debated that point in Committee, where there some concern was expressed about the word "selector". We had a fascinating conversation about early 1980s pop music and, indeed, rock music.

Something tumultuous is happening in this House—my right hon. Friend Sir Gerald Kaufman is sitting opposite me. I assure television viewers that it is not a change in ideology.

Photo of Gerald Kaufman Gerald Kaufman Labour, Manchester, Gorton

I sat here too often to do it deliberately.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

My right hon. Friend has made his point well.

The word "selector" is not ideal, but it describes the role. Because it is clear that the LGA is the obvious body to undertake the role, "selector" will disappear into statute. In practice, one will refer to the LGA. Because the LGA is a voluntary body, one cannot compel it to act through statute, but we hope that the agreement will provide for the selector role. I still have an open mind on the name, but I will not repeat the musical preferences of members of the Committee.

Although this group contains a number of other amendments, new clauses 1 to 4 plus the consequential arrangements provide for a simple process in legislative terms. There should be identification of and transparency in local spending. People should have the ability to get involved and to be consulted and informed. I had great difficulty in drafting the proposals for the panel relating to clause 139 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which does not exist in law so legislation cannot refer to it. Hence the perhaps obscure wording, which builds on clause 139.

I think that Anne Main will take comfort from this and take it back to her local meetings. It is desirable that there should be involvement, consultation and so on. Generally speaking, how that is done will be determined locally, but a local authority must be able to show that what is done satisfies the requirements of the legislation and the detailed guidance that flows from it, which will be consulted on. If an authority cannot do that, we will tell it how it must consult. The Bill sponsors have chosen the panel as the proper method, and there is strength in that idea in terms of public reassurance. People are cynical about elected politicians—by goodness, they are—so consultation on proposals with a panel of 12 good men and true, 12 good men and women true or 12 good youngsters will strengthen the Bill. That process—that building block—is put in place and it strengthens the ability to take the financial decisions sought by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and for Ruislip-Northwood.

I think that I have covered all the points raised by the new clauses and amendments. I commend our proposals to the House.

Photo of Martin Horwood Martin Horwood Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I congratulate Mr. Hurd on getting the Bill this far and offer him my warm support. I am beginning to understand the patience required by those who served on the Committee and the lengths to which people sometimes have to go to support the causes in which they believe.

I am concerned by the tone of some of the Government amendments, including new clauses 4 and 2. I welcome amendment (a)—a cheeky little amendment that makes an important point—but amendment No. 39 is an example of the way in which some of the language of the Bill is beginning to change, threatening its sense and purpose. Reflecting earlier Government amendments to other parts of the Bill, it changes the word "indicators" to the word "matters", but that implies that the various matters listed in the schedule are simply issues for discussion and not, as they are really intended to be, indicators of the health of a local community.

Let me illustrate that by reference to my own constituency. To outsiders, Cheltenham often seems like a very affluent place, and it is indeed doing well by many conventional economic indicators. However, a list of indicators such as that in the schedule would probably reveal a rather different picture. For instance, it might reveal the loss of local NHS services, including in-patient children's services and some local mental health services, and the imminent downgrading of our local maternity ward. It might reveal that the opening of five large supermarkets, while obviously delivering benefits to constituents as consumers, has occurred at some cost, in the most recent case almost immediately resulting in the loss of a series of local shops, in turn resulting in a loss of choice for consumers. The second indicator would reveal whether that was at some cost to the local economy.

The list of indicators might reveal the loss of local post offices, which have been reduced from 19 to 14 to 10 and will soon be reduced to nine or even fewer. It might highlight the risk to our green spaces, which seem to be continually threatened by over-development, or the threat to local railway services, which, it has been suggested, might move out of town and thereby make the town less, not more, sustainable. It might reveal the difficulty faced by local businesses such as Battledown brewery, which is struggling to get Cheltenham's only local beers into the large local supermarkets. That is a cause that I am sure that many hon. Members would happily support.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I am outraged to hear that, and I will take up the cudgels on that matter if the hon. Gentleman wants me to.

My intention in amendments Nos. 39 and 40 is to avoid confusion. The local government White Paper refers to national indicators, and the targets in the new comprehensive area assessment will be referred to as indicators. I am trying to avoid confusion in the public mind—that is my only intent—but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Photo of Martin Horwood Martin Horwood Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, particularly support for Battledown brewery and getting Cheltenham SPA into local supermarkets. I shall take him up on that. His comments were instructive in relation to the use of the word "indicators". The point is that they should be treated as genuine indicators of the health of a community locally. I appreciate that he is trying not to cause confusion, but I fear that we may be losing the sense of an important part of the Bill.

The amendments are important in relation to how consultations are dealt with. In many of the cases that I cited, certainly those relating to local services, there has been a strong sense locally either that consultations have not happened or that they have been granted grudgingly and that the wishes of local people have been ignored—in some cases, such as that of in-patient children's services at Cheltenham general hospital, spectacularly ignored.

If the Bill would still achieve what those who campaigned for it intended—namely, delivering not only consultation but participation—it has my continued enthusiastic support. Participation is not the same as consultation, which can be ignored. We are considering a genuine shift in power to local people that cannot easily be ignored.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

We agree with the hon. Gentleman's intention. The Bill, clause 139 of the Local Government and Involvement in Public Health Bill and the accompanying statutory guidance, will make participation and involvement more accessible and more likely. Crucially, the duty will be to inform, consult and involve. That is important for communities and for the third sector, which the hon. Gentleman supports.

Photo of Martin Horwood Martin Horwood Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I welcome the intention behind them but, again, the language is a little revealing. We are considering not only involvement but building into the Bill a presumption that the measures that communities and local people suggest will be adopted unless there are good reasons not to do that. I should like that important presumption to survive the Bill's later stages. If it passes that test, it remains one of the most important and radical measures that we have considered in this Parliament. It sets an important precedent for Government as a whole and continues to have my enthusiastic support.

Photo of Nick Hurd Nick Hurd Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood

I thank Martin Horwood for his support for the Bill and the small amendments in my name, which I shall explain briefly.

Amendment (a) to new clause 2 would remove the words "if any" from subsection (3). I believe that the Minister understands our point: someone who read the new clause might be encouraged to believe that we were passing a measure under which nothing need happen. Although we understand the Minister's possible need for safeguards, we encourage him to take comfort from the inclusion in the process of the selector, which we all hope will be the Local Government Association. We all agree that that is a highly credible body in which we should have some trust. The Minister already has a safeguard in the duty of co-operation in drawing up the short list. Clearly, the Secretary of State would not co-operate in including absurd proposals that are impossible to implement. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider our amendment reasonable and not divide the House on it.

On amendment (c) to new clause 4, we believe that subsection (4)(a)(ii) should be removed because it undermines what we are trying to achieve. We should send a strong signal that the Bill should promote best practice in engaging with local communities and in the process of consultation with communities. I believe that the Minister accepts the concept of community panels. Sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (4) undermines that concept and may leave too much space for local authorities to avoid setting up the panels and to engage in more traditional consultation processes of meeting in the town hall or issuing a questionnaire. In our experience, those processes are rather debased in terms of public trust. Traditional public consultation is often perceived as a sham. The Bill intends to send a strong signal that there is something different about the new process of engagement and consultation. If that explanation is clear, I hope that the Minister will not divide the House on those amendments.

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

I want to speak briefly about amendment No. 43, which would leave out paragraph (j) of the schedule. The schedule may not survive the Bill's passing into law, but I would like to tease out of my hon. Friend Mr. Hurd his reason for believing that paragraph (j) is essential. It covers

"measures designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases".

I know that my hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend Gregory Barker are on the energetic wing of our party when it comes to climate change issues, whereas my hon. Friend Philip Davies and I are somewhere between my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and Lord Lawson of Blaby on these matters.

Having established our respective positions, it is fair to say that the Bill is primarily about making local communities sustainable, not about greenhouse gas emissions, which is a global issue and is more properly addressed in any climate change legislation. My concern is that almost any activity that helps make a community sustainable will increase CO2 emissions—employment, commerce, construction, farming and transport, for example.

Photo of Martin Horwood Martin Horwood Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 12:45, 15 June 2007

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see the connection, for instance, between encouraging renewable sources of energy at local level and sustainability on a global scale? The two are intimately connected.

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

I do see that and I will come on to that very issue in a few moments, if I may.

It seems to me that the particular requirement in the Bill could be used against the local food economy. When I started to investigate the impact of food on the environment, I thought that I would find myself concentrating on the issue of food miles, but it appears that transport is a tiny component of agriculture's worldwide contribution to greenhouse gas emissions—and the main culprit is in the fields chewing cud. It turns out that livestock, predominantly cattle, are responsible for about 18 per cent. of the total of all emissions. A fifth of all our emissions—more than the emissions produced by the poor old tax-clobbered motorist—are due to cattle. About 70 per cent. of all agricultural land is used to raise animals and that amounts to about a third of the land surface of the planet. What is more, more than a third of all our cereal production goes to feed those animals. A recent UN report estimated that 160 millions tonnes of carbon dioxide are associated with the fossil fuels emitted by cattle.

Photo of Martin Horwood Martin Horwood Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I am awaiting with great anticipation the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of vegetarianism; otherwise, what solution is he suggesting to deal with the problem presented by the cows and how would he prevent emissions of methane?

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

I am not a vegetarian and I am not advising the House to go vegan, although I presume from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that that is what he would like me to do. We are able to tackle some issues—home insulation, for example—without destroying people's lifestyle. Emissions from homes and factories account for about a third of the present total, so we could eat into a whole third without affecting local communities, without changing the way people go about their business and without destroying the sustainability of local communities.

It is not just a matter of carbon dioxide, as animals produce other gases, but I do not want to go any further into that now. This is not a debate on agriculture. I would, however, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood further to consider the particular provision in the schedule. It could be used by some people to close local businesses or it could be used against the activities of local farmers and others. I feel that it sits uneasily with a Bill that is trying to promote sustainable communities. My view is that this issue should be left to be dealt with comprehensively by a climate change Bill.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury

Following on from Mr. Knight, we need to ensure that local services remain available at the community level. If we want to cut down on people's car miles, the easiest way is to ensure that they have access to local services. There are therefore measures that can simultaneously benefit the environment and the sustainability of the local community.

I shall not dwell on new clause 1, as it was extensively debated in the earlier string of amendments. New clause 3 is obviously welcome because it underlines parliamentary accountability in the working of the Bill. I shall thus comment briefly on new clauses 2 and 4 and the amendments tabled by Mr. Hurd.

We must remember that the body that will put forward the list of proposals will be the Local Government Association. That filter will represent an important safeguard and it will not be the case that an irresponsible local council will be able to go directly to the Secretary of State with proposals that do not make sense or that have a clear political motive. The LGA is duty bound to represent the views of all of its members, and that is an important safeguard that will mitigate the need for the inclusion of "if any" in the clause as drafted. I hope that the Minister will think about that again.

New clause 4 contains the regulatory framework for the mechanism of how consultation and participation will work in relation to new clause 1. Amendment (a) to new clause 4 would ensure that it will be possible to recognise existing bodies instead of requiring additional bodies to be set up, so I hope that the Minister will not object to it.

Amendment (c) tries to deal with the issue of either/or. We need to ensure that there is a minimum standard of democratic right in this part of the Bill and remember the cynicism that exists. If a local council abuses the mechanisms that we are trying to create, the public will be well aware of that, and that provides democratic accountability. It is important that the Bill sends a clear signal that the public should be confident that no Government will use the Bill to act in an unreasonable way. Our amendments are reasonable in terms of the democratic standard for participation rather than simple, qualitative consultation, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. We must also be realistic about the fact that the public are alert to the potential for abuse by local and central Government.

Photo of Philip Davies Philip Davies Conservative, Shipley

I rise to touch briefly on some of the issues that have been mentioned. We had a long discussion earlier about why new clause 6 was better than new clause 1, and I do not intend to revisit it. My hon. Friend Anne Main raised the elephant in the room in relation to the Bill and new clause 1, and that is planning and where it fits into this issue.

In my constituency, the issue that undermines the sustainable community that we all wish to see is the planning regime and, for example, the infrastructure that is needed to support new development. That is a huge issue in many areas. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify where the regional assemblies fit in in relation to new clause 1. The functions currently performed by regional assemblies would be better dealt with at a local authority level, especially when it comes to how many houses local authorities have to build in their area. Whatever local control local authorities have over planning—and they do not have very much—is hindered in my area by the fact that the regional assembly is insisting that over the next 15 years Bradford council has to build some 15,000 houses, whether it likes it or not. That regional assembly is unelected, unaccountable and unnecessary. It has no popular support. There was no popular support for an elected assembly in the north-east, so there is certainly no popular support for an unelected and unaccountable regional assembly. I hope that Minister will explain where planning and the ability of local authorities to decide how many houses can be sustained in the local area fit into new clause 1.

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Culture, Media & Sport

I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If there is no support for an unelected regional assembly and he would not favour an elected assembly, how can strategic decisions for a region be taken democratically?

Photo of Philip Davies Philip Davies Conservative, Shipley

My point relates to the amount of houses that should be built in a given local area. I believe—to be honest, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not agree—that the decision on how many houses are sustainable in a given area and community should best be made by the local authority concerned and not by a regional assembly based in another part of the area.

Photo of Lynda Waltho Lynda Waltho PPS (Rt Hon David Hanson, Minister of State), Ministry of Justice

I am sorry—I do not know the political make-up of the assembly that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but surely his local council has elected representatives on it.

Photo of Philip Davies Philip Davies Conservative, Shipley

The point is that although there may well be such a representative, they can be outvoted, whereas if the issue is dealt with at a purely local level, a decision cannot be foisted on my local area and on Bradford that the people do not want, which is what happens at the moment. Housing developments in my constituency have been insisted on by a combination of the regional assembly, which insisted on a particular number of houses being built, and a Government planning inspector who decided that the area was ripe for development—totally against the wishes of the community and of the local authority. If we are trying to encourage sustainable development, we should encourage the making of these decisions at a local level.

Photo of David Drew David Drew Labour, Stroud

I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 1(l) of the schedule, which clearly refers to

"planning policies which would assist with the purposes of this Act, including new arrangements for the provision of affordable housing".

Indeed, that was an amendment that I was pleased to move in Committee, so the argument is made regarding sustainability of settlement and what can be achieved through this Bill. I therefore do not know why the hon. Gentleman has chosen to go on at such great length about regional assemblies at this point.

Photo of Philip Davies Philip Davies Conservative, Shipley

The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that regional assemblies currently decide how many houses have to be built in a local area, whether or not the authority in question wants them. That situation has to be dealt with. There is no point in saying that we are giving more powers to local people and local authorities on matters of sustainability, when the power to decide on one of the biggest sustainability issues in our local communities has been taken away from them and given to regional assemblies.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not allow a debate on regional assemblies, but just to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, I point out that the Bill as drafted and before the House today includes regional assemblies within the list of bodies in respect of which a local authority can request a transfer of functions. So such a mechanism exists.

Photo of Philip Davies Philip Davies Conservative, Shipley

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for providing that clarification, which will certainly give people in Shipley and Bradford and members of Bradford council a lot of hope and encouragement when this Bill reaches the statute book.

I should point out in passing that I support the amendments—the "cheeky" amendments, as I think Martin Horwood described them—tabled by my hon. Friend Mr. Hurd and Mr. Drew, which would delete the words "if any" from new clause 2 and insert "or recognise" after "establish" in new clause 4. I am sure that we do not want to create a new bureaucracy by establishing new bodies; rather, we should simply be recognising existing ones.

I want to touch on the issues raised by my right hon. Friend Mr. Knight, who made a very valuable point. I mentioned earlier my concern about consensus in politics. We appear to have gone down a road whereby people's ability to exercise free speech on certain subjects is being undermined, and there is no greater example of that at the moment than climate change. People have jumped on to that particular bandwagon with religious zeal, rather than looking at the issue from a purely objective perspective. Of course we all care about the future of our planet and the legacy that we leave our children and grandchildren—nobody doubts the importance of that—but the question is how effective the measures taken are in tackling any problem that there may be. It is no good our trying to do something completely disproportionate that disproportionately affects our economy and the quality of life of the people of this country, with no overall benefit to the world as a whole, anyway.

My right hon. Friend touches on an important point. We know that only 2 per cent. of the world's carbon emissions are emitted from the UK. How much of the world's carbon emissions are emitted from each of our local areas? A tiny fraction. We all want to encourage people to get involved in things such as recycling and helping the local environment. That is to be welcomed and happens in many of our local communities already. However, as he said, do we really want to encourage people who are motivated not by a belief in environmental issues but by wider anti-capitalist views to charge along with something that they have introduced on the basis of sustainable development, when we all know that the overall impact on global emissions will be tiny and worthless while China churns out new power stations week after week?

I hope that people will not use this popular Bill, which will be important for enhancing local accountability, to jump on a bandwagon that will make little difference to global warming and global carbon emissions. The Bill's purpose, which I strongly support, is to enable local people, in their local community, to have a real say on the decisions that are taken on their behalf. I hope that it will not be used by people in the pursuit of objectives that are not consistent with that purpose, which will allow my local residents to have a greater say in decisions taken in their area.

Photo of Alan Haselhurst Alan Haselhurst Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means 1:00, 15 June 2007

Order. The hon. Gentleman was in danger of making a Third Reading speech, which is something that I shall bear in mind.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I apologise for taking time to get to my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was taken by surprise. I was waiting to hear where we were going next. Philip Davies speaks his mind, and I congratulate him on that, although I am not sure what it had to do with the amendments.

I commented on the removal of "if any" and do not intend to oppose amendment (a) to new clause 2. Mr. Hurd explained why we need it, especially as the drafting change requires co-operation in drawing up the shortlist of proposals. It gives us an opportunity to have a sensible and pragmatic approach. As for the panels, it is not desirable to say that there must be a panel if there is an alternative, but he wants to ensure that there is another way of going about things. Everyone who served on the Committee agreed and saw that as at the heart of the proposals. As I said, I would prefer not to have those amendments, but I do not intend to delay the passing of the Bill on that basis.

Mr. Knight put forward his argument on amendment No. 43. We are neutral on that. The Government see the benefits of including emissions in the Bill, but I had not thought of the point that he made. I pay a lot of attention to what he says, because my experience is that he makes thoughtful, and correct, amendments.

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Chair, Procedure Committee

I am grateful for the Minister's response and for noting my comments. On that basis, and on the basis that he bears my comments in mind when he pursues the matter further, I shall not press my amendment to a Division.

Photo of Phil Woolas Phil Woolas Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I should mention that I visited his local authority area, and that the authority has helped the Government. It has taken great strides forward in involving local people and providing services at the local level—and it has done so on an all-party basis. The ideas that it, and particularly its leading councillors and chief executive, put forward were important in the formulation of our policy as set out in the local government White Paper. The East Riding of Yorkshire is one of the most beautiful parts of the country. The local authority has made tremendous improvements as a result of using new technology to service what is largely a rural area—in fact, almost all of it is rural.

The group of amendments under discussion includes many Government amendments that simply make drafting improvements, in particular changing "council" to "authority", which I am told is important for the avoidance of doubt. I will not comment further on them.

The Bill is workable and there is consensus on it. It complements and adds to other legislation and policies. It is an important part of the architecture of measures in respect of local government. I think that all the questions on this group of amendments have now been answered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.