Clause 66

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:15 pm on 11 June 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Local authority economic assessment

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government 2:30, 11 June 2009

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 66, page 49, line 13, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

To address amendment 60 I must say a word or two in introduction to part 4 of the Bill, since neither Minister has risen to her feet to do so. We are now approaching the heart of the Bill. The clause on local authority economic assessment will provide space for many of the arguments that you have already heard, Mr. Illsley, I am afraid, in relation to other parts of the Bill, in particular about the first three sets of duties.

What members of the Committee see before them is a proposal that a

“principal local authority in England must”— note, “must”—

“prepare an assessment of the economic conditions of its area.”

In subsection (2) it may revise the assessment

“or any part of it...at any time”.

That provision was introduced presumably in case subsection (1) proves in practice to be even more inflexible than the clause looks as a whole.

Let us pause for a moment and look at the whole business of economic assessment. Obviously, any reasonably sized local authority worth its salt will have an eye to the economic conditions of its area. In our area, Wycombe district council, which is one of the larger district councils in England, has all sorts of data available to it about the economic conditions in the area as a whole and in the Thames valley—the information is easily accessible—and it makes assessments of the information that is in front of it. However, the first question that the clause and its first two subsections give rise to is, as ever, why that has to be on the statute book. We have asked the question so many times that I shall not repeat it at length. However, I will ask a variant of it. Why is it that Ministers believe that it is important to put an economic assessment—only—on the statute book?

Any local council worth its salt, such as Wycombe district council, does not only prepare economic statistics; it also prepares social, housing and education statistics and assessments. If one burrows through my local council’s website, one can find child poverty statistics. As it is a feature of this clause, I am curious to know why so much stress is placed on economic assessments of the workings of the economy and the issue of prosperity only. Far be it from any member of the Conservative party to take a view that seems sceptical of business—we are not doing that at all—but it is curious that the Government have not thought fit to put a social, environmental or sustainability assessment in the Bill, given that they have thought fit to include an economic assessment.

There are always questions about the balance between growth and the environment, between standard of living and quality of life and how the two interact. The Minister will be aware that Opposition parties have received representations arguing that in this Bill the Government have become over-focused on growth. When the Bill was drawn up, I do not know whether anyone anticipated the promotion of Lord Mandelson to First Secretary of State and his Department’s subsequent swallowing-up of whole other areas of Government, but there seems to be a case for arguing that the Government have put their eggs very strongly in the basket of economic, rather than other forms of assessment. That is a curiosity.

That is the background. If hon. Members cast their eye down the clause, they will see multiple instances of the word “must”—I have highlighted the word five times in my copy, and the clause even starts with a “must”—hence amendment 60. It is an amendment, Mr. Illsley, of a type with which you will be familiar. A moment ago I said that we have no objection to a local authority carrying out economic assessments—how could we? If this clause must be on the statute book, we would prefer to take “must” out and insert the word “may”.

I obviously cannot speak to the amendment that was tabled by a Member who was going to be on the Committee, but no longer is; perhaps the Whips got him and bound him in a dark cupboard.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

Indeed. Amendment 60, as ever, seeks to tone down the element of compulsion in this clause by inserting “may” instead of “must”. That would allow local authorities the freedom to conduct economic local area assessments if they so wish. Yet again, we cannot see why it is necessary to include such a restrictive term in the statute book.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

On local authority economic assessments, in part 4 of the Bill, it is understandable that during difficult economic times the priority of the Government and local authorities is to focus on understanding the nature of the problem and how it may best be resolved. I share some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe, in particular the reason for framing this measure as a requirement on all local authorities. Most local authorities already have a sustainability strategy, and one would hope that some information might inform that. I wonder to what extent this provision will underline work that already takes place.

The key thing about assessments is that they should inform future actions; councils should not be allowed simply to tick a box stating that they have done one. My concern is about the next stage in the process. If the Government think that the economic assessment is important, surely the next stage is just as important, but the Bill does not really contain anything about that.

I also have some concerns—the Conservatives’ amendments highlight these—about the idea that economic assessments must stick rigidly to the boundaries of a local authority, even thought they might bear no relation to the boundaries of economic experience. Some principal authorities might find that their economic circumstances are very similar to those of a neighbouring authority, but within local authorities there might be very different circumstances. It might be difficult to reflect that in a single assessment. For example, I imagine that the economic assessment of the council of the Isles of Scilly would be very similar to that of west Cornwall, but the clause would make it impossible for the council to produce a joint economic assessment with west Cornwall. It requires the whole of Cornwall to conduct one assessment and the Isles of Scilly to conduct another. There is a danger of both duplication and of missing out some of the variations within a local authority, because the clause is so prescriptive in focusing on an economic assessment across a single local authority area.

Photo of Stewart Jackson Stewart Jackson Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

The hon. Lady is making a strong point. Does she agree that the prescriptive nature of the clause does not take into account the relationship that many local authorities have with urban regeneration companies and other regeneration partnerships? A prescriptive requirement on authorities to prepare such assessments could result in duplication, if an assessment has already been prepared, perhaps on an agency or collaborative basis with an urban regeneration company, for instance.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

That is one example of the danger of duplication. Of course, however, that information might also help to inform a principal authority’s assessment. The clause lacks flexibility. The assumption is that the boundaries in place already will be the same as those of economic experience. No doubt we will have a similar discussion on part 5, dealing with regional strategy. Just as there might not be one economic experience in a principal authority, it will be difficult to conduct one economic assessment for a single region with several different economies. I am pre-empting a discussion that we will no doubt have on later clauses.

I am concerned about the lack of flexibility, including in the consideration of what will have an economic influence. My attention is drawn to our experiences in Cornwall with objective 1 funding. The history books show that the primary problem for Cornwall when we tried to qualify for objective 1 funding was that the previous boundaries lumped Devon and Cornwall together as an economic entity. That meant that, despite the fact that one falls of an economic cliff when crossing the Tamar bridge, the poverty in Cornwall was not recognised. As much as anything else, addressing those issues necessitated the realisation that the boundaries were inadequate. After that, consideration had to be given to what those funds were put towards. Although the objective was an improvement in Cornwall’s economy, much of  the resource has been invested in education, infrastructure and all kinds of different things. A narrow interpretation of an economic assessment might exclude many of those considerations.

So we have three broad concerns. First, the interpretation of what might impact on a local area’s economy is too narrow. Secondly, nothing is said about what actions the strategy should inform. Thirdly, there is not enough flexibility to allow the assessment to reflect how the economy is functioning. It is not right to assume that every local authority will have its own economy—that is clearly not going to be the case. Some authorities might require more than one economic assessment; others might be better off working jointly with neighbouring authorities.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon 2:45, 11 June 2009

I want to follow the hon. Lady by referring to my neck of the woods, as she has to hers. North Yorkshire has a wide range of authorities—a county council, a unitary council in the shape of York itself, eight district councils and two national parks—and it spreads almost coast to coast, from Bridlington, Whitby down to Hull. The concerns are clear. One crosses the plain of York, hits the Pennine range and goes towards the little bit of England that is left over, which is called Lancashire. We have Cumbria at the top left hand corner. It is practically a continent in itself. From the Pennines one can see a long way further than the Urals. [Interruption.] One can almost see Bradford.

If it is intended that the assessment should be county-wide, how does one bring it together? The area includes Bentham, which is in a sense dependent on Lancashire—it looks towards Lancaster and that part of Lancashire—and, insofar as people commute, they tend to go north or north-west. It also embraces the major population centre of York, a unitary council, and has a series of scattered districts. It has coastal areas with particular economic needs, dependent on not very high quality tourism. [Interruption.] I mean that in terms of how much people spend there; there are many day-trippers. The tourism in my constituency is not very high in that many people do not spend much money. We do not take as much money off them as we would like because they come as hikers and cyclists. [Interruption.] If the Minister looked at the speech I gave in the House a couple of weeks ago on the problems facing my constituency due to the sheer incompetence of the Learning and Skills Council and the threats to Craven college, she would understand how important it is to diversify the economy. The present tourist base needs to offer more and better, in order to attract a wider range of tourists and, quite frankly, take more money off them. That is the important point I am making.

First, in such a diverse area how does one draw up an economic plan or report with any real meaning? It is so diverse in character. There are, of course, similarities but there are some specific needs: agriculture, small-scale tourism—I should say, rather than poor quality—and small-scale manufacturing. With the exception of one or two big outfits such as the Skipton Building Society, it has relatively small-scale business. Secondly, how narrowly do we define the term “economic”? Do we introduce elements of sustainability? We are supposed to marry sustainability into all our ways of looking at the economy nowadays. In that case, how do we deal  with acute issues—not in my constituency, I am delighted to say, praise the Lord—such as the proposal for a large incinerator? If anybody wishes to see popular democracy in action, they have only to propose that someone put an incinerator or houses anywhere near. Houses and incinerators have a particular capacity to get the entire population enraged, at least in England. In Denmark people seem to think that both of them are good ideas—one is used to heat the other. In England, however, we seem to take an entirely different view. [Interruption.] In case my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe had any doubts about the direction of the economic inputs, it is the incinerator that is used to heat the house.

How wide does that assessment go? Does it take in issues such as skills? The real problem in North Yorkshire is not that the education quality is not good; it ought to be good given the sociology of such an area. The level of skills, however, is often not very high. One needs to be able to enhance that, which is why issues such as the future of the further education colleges are crucial in the regeneration programmes of North Yorkshire.

Thirdly, the hon. Lady mentioned an important issue: the correct geometry of the economic report. Regarding North Yorkshire, one could almost say that there is a part of what used to be North Riding that in many ways still looks north for its services. At Masham in my constituency for example, the hospital is at Northallerton, and beyond that the specialist hospitals tend to be those in Middlesbrough, on Teesside. The old West Riding of Yorkshire, which includes Ripon, which is next door to Masham, and Craven, tends to look down towards Leeds. In one of the Government’s projects, the city region—which I support—the Leeds city region includes the district councils of Craven, Harrogate and Selby. We have already seen projects run on a city region basis, and the sensible unit for economic planning is those metropolitan areas, and the travel-to-work areas that depend on them. In many ways that is a more real economic unit than North Yorkshire. One could equally—[Interruption.] The Minister shrugs her shoulders and says that it is not, but I am a supporter of a city region area, and it is. She will have her turn in a minute. I would defer to her on the affairs of Doncaster and South Yorkshire, which as far as I am concerned is almost on the M25, and I ask her to defer to my knowledge of North Yorkshire on these matters. In the north part of the county, there is a great deal of logic in a unit that is based more towards Teesside, a large part of which used to be regarded as part of Yorkshire.

How do these things fit together? How do we ensure that in producing an assessment on a county-wide basis we are not getting in the way of, multiplying, or having too much overlap with, assessments that might relate to more natural units? At the moment, the travel-to-work area is one of the most classic economic units for assessment right across the industrial world. I would not want to lump together artificially areas that have a natural affinity but in a geographical and sociological sense. In an economic sense, those areas do not look towards each other but towards other parts. If one takes Craven in my constituency, which is essentially—

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about city regions. The Government’s agenda has been to focus all kinds of policy and activity  on a city region and it would make sense if the clause reflected that. However, what the clause could also do, if it were framed in that broader way, would be to allow a more rural alternative to the city regions to develop. At the moment, we have clear policy for city regions and a complete absence of policy for everything outside them.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon

The real criticism is that the Government have produced the idea of city regions but have not yet intellectually thought it through effectively. Yorkshire Forward, our regional development agency, will be responsible for a large area, and we will have a new body dealing with learning and skills issues, neither of which body is congruent with the city region, which is one of the two trial areas. Manchester and Leeds are the two trial city region areas. The Government need to be more consistent in thinking it through. If they intend to construct city regions and other bodies, perhaps they need to deconstruct, or we will have too many competing authorities and jurisdictions.

It may simply be that, inevitably, all wording in the Bill is a sort of shorthand and that the Minister will be able to explain it, but at the moment, I am concerned that we are doing something that appears on the surface to be eminently sensible but that is not as obviously practical when one looks a bit below the surface. I would like her reassurance on that matter.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich

I rise briefly because the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has made some interesting points, and I want to give the obverse perspective from London. Before I do so, though, I say to him that I will not be goaded by his reference, which he made knowing full well that I spent four happy days as a tourist in his area between Christmas and the new year, and I do not consider myself low-value tourism, but I will let it pass.

London, the principal authority defined in the legislation, is a London borough council. London has a Greater London authority, which has economic development powers created by the Greater London Authority Acts. Those powers are vested in the Mayor and the GLA. It is not clear from the legislation how far the London boroughs, in framing the individual economic assessment for their area, should take account of the wider perspective set by the London economic development strategy produced by the Mayor and the London Development Agency.

Clearly, that is a different position from that of authorities in other parts of the country who have no regional authorities to relate to, so there is a specific issue with London. I am not clear how the legislation is expected to work and how the potential for conflict will be avoided between the city-wide authority, which has economic development responsibilities, and the strategy developed by the individual London borough. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. At the moment, particularly in the current economic downturn, all public authorities—particularly local government, which I know as regional Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber—are thinking clearly about their effect as authorities that  spend a lot of money in an area, have a key role in employing up to thousands of people and whose policies can make a difference to local businesses. Placing a duty on them to make an economic assessment is vital for not only the present, but the future in terms of thinking about how they consider the particular circumstances of their area. What can they do as local authorities to support local businesses? What can they do to support local people in acquiring skills, getting training and attracting inward investment? At the moment, they occasionally play a vital role in supporting businesses and individuals who might be in particular difficulty. What we are doing in the Bill is an absolute fit with much of the current economic thinking on the role of national, regional and local government.

I will deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I am quite shocked. She is, again, simply going along with Conservative Front-Bench assertions, which boil down to “Let’s not do anything. Let’s just allow the recession to take its course.” They do not believe that there is any role for intervention in the economy. That is why they have opposed what we have done at national and regional levels. Frankly, I am surprised that she is falling for that trick. That exposes the paucity of Liberal Democrat thought when it comes to implementing real policies that will help local people, including in her region.

The Opposition’s policy is to oppose and abolish regional development agencies. The economics suggest that about 5 million people are needed in an area for an effective regional strategy to be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich took the Bill that established regional development agencies through the legislative process. That legislation was built on a clear body of evidence on what was needed to stimulate the economy at regional level, and I think that regional development agencies have been extremely effective.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 3:00, 11 June 2009

I assure the Minister that my views are based on facts and the experiences related to me by my constituents on the ground, rather than on the legislation before us, which is sometimes used by the Government as a proxy for action. She is about to defend regional development agencies as the drivers of economic change. I will give an example of the reason why I have defended the ability of councils to decide for themselves what is best. This week, the South West of England Regional Development Agency decided to cut back on £50 million-worth of projects, a large proportion of which would have had an impact in my constituency. There is no accountability for that. Regional development agencies are failing to do even what the Government say they are doing.

The Minister should be careful in what she says because everybody in this room is advocating the changes that they think will have the biggest impact on the ground. We all have a duty to consider all the evidence, not just what is put forward selectively in the Bill.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

Actually, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. The evidence shows that for every pound invested by regional development agencies, the growth back is about £4.50. If she looks at how many jobs have been created,  she will see that regional development agencies have played a real role. It is a bit rich for her to say that RDAs are unaccountable when she will not participate in the Select Committees that scrutinise their work.

Photo of Eric Illsley Eric Illsley Labour, Barnsley Central

Order. We are not going to have another debate on Regional Select Committees. We must come back to the amendment.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised an interesting point about what view the North Yorkshire councils would take of the kind of duty we are discussing. As the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, I have had a number of meetings with the leaders of those councils. I think that they would be pretty horrified by the idea that tourism in their area is of a poor quality. I think that those involved in “Welcome to Yorkshire” would be quite upset to hear that tourism in Yorkshire is considered to be substandard, or whatever the words were.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon

I do not want to again get into a 30 years war, as the French would call it. Yorkshire must ensure that its tourism is more diverse and has a greater range. The problem is that a large volume of the people who come stay in bed and breakfasts and the take is relatively small. That is why we need much better winter facilities and a wider offer: we want to take more money off the individual tourist. That is what I am talking about. If the Minister looks at the regeneration strategy based on Skipton, she will find that I am practically quoting it.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

The right hon. Gentleman would, I hope, acknowledge that the £30 million invested by Yorkshire Forward in “Welcome to Yorkshire” is having a huge effect on tourism. It is a good example of how such regional intervention can help to stimulate one of the key industries in our area at a very difficult time.

Tourism is worth something like £6 billion to the Yorkshire and Humber region and employs about 250,000 people. We are trying to stimulate it through regional action. However, council leaders in North Yorkshire have been anxious to ensure that when there is an economic focus, through, for example, the city regions, they can put together an economic case for their area as well. Areas such as Scarborough and Bridlington have been what we call “renaissance towns” in terms of investment from Yorkshire Forward to ensure that we are getting high-quality tourism. The worry for councils is that it is important that they have their “economic stamp” on the plans, as well as the economic plans put forward through the city region pilots.

There has been a lot of support from councils of all political hues in the fight for Leeds city region to become one of the pilots. That has been welcomed. Taking an overview of Yorkshire and the Humber, it is exactly the type of action that councils are supporting. They want to play a role in economic development, but feel that consistency is needed.

The problem with the Conservative amendment is that it actually says. “You can do it if you want to.” The whole point of getting councils together and emphasising  economic development is to ensure that they make the assessment needed to get consistency that can be fed into the overall strategy on the regional approach to stimulating the economy. That fit needs to be put together to ensure that councils, which can have a huge effect on their local economies, think clearly about what they need to do to support local businesses, support people to get jobs and help new company start-ups. I am surprised that the Opposition feel that it is better to sit back and think, “Fingers crossed, let’s hope something happens.”

Several hon. Membersrose

Photo of Stewart Jackson Stewart Jackson Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

It is a shame that the Minister is having recourse to a tub-thumping political attack. Her argument is predicated on preparing an assessment being the same as taking action, but we have seen over the past six months that they are not the same. In fact, she is cogently making the same argument as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. She is giving many examples of the diversity and plurality of local authorities’ actions to benefit their local areas economically, socially and demographically. The clause is not needed if those things are already happening.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about what local authorities are saying. They want notice to be taken of their local economic assessment. The provision is a way to build it into the everyday business of local authorities. That is hugely important to local people.

The hon. Gentleman talked about being over-focused on growth, but I do not think that we should deride a focus on growth. It is incredibly important that we focus on how we can stimulate the local authorities and others to help people through these difficult times, but beyond that we should think about the future, when the economic downturn is over. What will local areas look like, what skills will they need, which industries will they want to attract into their area and which will they need to help? Those questions are encompassed by introducing the duty for local authorities. I am certain that if Opposition Members talked a little more to their local councillors, they would get the same message, which is about the role that they feel they can play now to help local people.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I can see that, both at local level and from central Government’s perspective, it is necessary to see how all the different economic experiences fit together to inform Government policy, but does the Minister not understand that if central Government dictate the shape and size of those jigsaw pieces, it undermines their ability to understand what is going on the ground? We need a bottom-up process to give central Government the best understanding of what is going on, rather than a top-down one.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

That is exactly why we give local authorities the ability to join together through local area agreements if they wish. Some local authorities may say that in some instances it is right to widen the area covered, but in others, because of the employing  power, the businesses in a particular local authority, colleges, schools and so on, there will be a very clear fit within the boundaries of the local authority. However, if there is desire to join together—for example, through local area agreements—we have said that it is for local authorities to come forward. There is flexibility within that, but within the Bill there is obviously a clear duty on the principal local authorities to do that.

In terms of the counties and the relationship between the counties and the districts, when drawing up any economic assessment the counties will have to consult with the districts. If the districts wish to draw up their own economic assessments, they can do so, but again that gives the flexibility to achieve what feels right within individual areas. That is an important caveat that perhaps has not been entirely clear. That perhaps addresses some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. Many districts within that North Yorkshire area will want to make their needs clear, especially some of those coastal areas and seaside towns.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon

I am sure the right hon. Lady understands that nobody is suggesting that local authorities are not enthusiastic about trying to address the economic needs of their areas—of course they need to recognise the different needs. One thing she said is very important: the measure is not intended to be too prescriptive. My concern is not that I do not want people to take action; I simply do not want them to find themselves in a framework in which arrows are pointing in different directions. Given the importance of a sub-regional strategy, if we are now going to produce an over-layer of a county strategy, which is not inconsistent with the provision, I do not want there to be a huge problem in marrying both strategies together. In that sense, I am reassured. I discuss all this with my county councillors all the time, of course, and I will certainly discuss it with the 50-odd Conservative members, the 20-odd Liberal members and the Labour member of North Yorkshire county council.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government) 3:15, 11 June 2009

As have I. I have found quite a lot of support for the idea of involving local authorities in stimulating their economies. On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the GLA strategy, I assure him that the guidance will stress the need for boroughs to take account of mayoral strategies and vice versa.

It is important that the duty is enshrined in local authority duties. The duty is vital, now and for the future, to support local people and businesses, and it has the right amount of flexibility to ensure that, if local authorities want to join together over a wider area, they are entirely free to do so, if that is what is felt to work best locally. I hope that my arguments have absolutely persuaded the Opposition to withdraw their amendment and that they recognise the importance of the action that we are taking.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

The Committee has had a wide-ranging debate in which we have considered whether the assessment of economic conditions is too narrow and whether such assessments should be more widely drawn. We did not say that it is not important to do that at a time of recession any more than the Minister said that it is not important to assess sustainability. The Committee has also considered whether the economic areas referred to  in the clause are too narrowly drawn. We have been given two small tours by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who raised the point, which my right hon. Friend summed up very well, about arrows pointing in different directions, and how the duty will interact with other local authority duties or assessments that are carried out in other forms.

The Minister’s response seemed to show very little confidence in the Bill’s content. I have not served opposite her for long and I do not know her modus operandi well, but she clearly feels much happier in her comfort zone attacking the Opposition for apparently doing nothing while the Government do everything, which is reflected in their successful results in the current polls. I could reply in a similar vein. We could have a little bit of party political knockabout and consider whether it is the Opposition or the Government who are doing better out of their respective political approaches at present.

That would be an interesting debate, but it is more relevant to state that, owing to her splendid piece of knockabout and her wielding of an enormous cudgel in the direction of Falmouth and Camborne, I am not actually sure whether the Minister has properly read the amendment or the clause. She has painted a picture of the clause as a vital part of a strategy that, to quote her, “feeds into” regional strategies, so that the direction of movement is clearly upwards. We understand her approach, but the clause does not state that at all. As someone pointed out during the debate—I think it was the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne—it only states that they “must prepare an assessment.” It does not say that they have to do anything with it, nor does it say that it must be fed up into the great regional strategy, of which the Minister is so proud. I am not sure that she has read her own legislation—she is just much happier doing the traditional Labour thing of seeing how well it will serve them at the polls.

Finally, we on this side of the Committee do not propose to do nothing. All we are doing is proposing to delete the prescriptive word “must”—it leads nowhere, because all it does is compel the local authority to create a strategy without putting anything else on the face of the Bill—and insert the word “may”, which will allow local authorities the freedom and the flexibility to carry out the assessments for themselves. That is the clear divide in the Committee, and we intend to press our amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Division number 29 Nimrod Review — Statement — Clause 66

Aye: 5 MPs

No: 8 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 66, page 49, line 19, leave out ‘, other than a non-unitary district council’.

Photo of Eric Illsley Eric Illsley Labour, Barnsley Central

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 62, in clause 66, page 49, line 27, leave out from ‘council’ to end of line 28 and insert

‘it shall act in partnership with the district council or district councils for that area in discharging its functions under this section.’.

Amendment 63, in clause 66, page 49, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

In effect, we have just considered the first part of the clause. We ought, for a moment, to consider further aspects of the economic assessment, which will stand alone as a result of the clause. If members of the Committee turn their eyes to subsection (6), they will see, to their surprise, that

“A principal local authority must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State

(a) as to what an assessment under this section should contain and how it should be prepared;”.

There is a considerable role for the Secretary of State here, as other paragraphs of the subsection make clear. If Members turn the page, they will see that before giving the guidance

“the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

It is an entirely circular process invented in the latter part of the clause, which is why we sensibly propose to leave it out. The first amendment seeks to explore that, and no doubt the Minister will tell us why non-unitary district councils should be excluded—she may well have a persuasive argument to put forward.

Amendment 62 seeks to stress partnership. We have been here many times before. We have heard the approach from the Government side and from those on the Opposition Benches. As I have said, we have this economic assessment, which stands alone, and there are no further means on the statute book of putting the measure into effect, which seems odd—although not as odd as putting it on the statute book without those means in the first place. We look forward to hearing what other members of the Committee have to say.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

We have already outlined many of the ways in which this section will work and the need for county councils to consult district councils in drawing up an economic assessment. As we have said, there is nothing to stop district councils doing their own assessment, if they wish to. However, I find it a bit odd that, to a certain extent, the Opposition are saying, “You’re making everybody do this assessment,” but then say, “Well, actually we want more people to do the assessment than is currently required under the Bill.”

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

We are not saying that at all. We are simply trying to establish the Minister’s rationale for forcing the other councils to do things she does not seem to want to force district councils to do.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

We have already talked about the need for an economic assessment to take place. I addressed that when replying to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about what happens in an area such as North Yorkshire where, to a certain extent, in terms of the economic assessment, there is an anxiety that if all the economic focus is around the Leeds city region, some of the more rural areas in that part of North Yorkshire will not have the same amount of attention focused on them. That is exactly why there is a duty at county council level to do so, which I believe is welcomed by those authorities. However, there is also the ability to consult, first of all, the district councils. If the district councils wish to make their own economic assessment, there is absolutely no problem with their doing so. I am finding it curious that, on the one hand, the Opposition say that they do not think that the duty should exist, but on the other hand, they want to put the duty on more councils. That is why I am a little puzzled.

We are also discussing amendment 63. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Wycombe addressed amendment 63 in his opening remarks.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

When the Minister reads Hansard tomorrow, she will find that, in fact, the first part of my remarks was on subsections (6) and (7).

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

I understand that amendment 63 takes away the requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Again, the issue here is that on the one hand, the Opposition want us to be more specific about exactly what the economic assessment will need to take into account, but on the other hand, they seem to want local authorities not to take any notice of that. I cannot quite marry those two positions up.

We wish to consult local authority bodies and others about the detail of the economic assessment and provide helpful guidance on how to draw it up. However, it is important that there is a certain level of consistency about that, so we wish to issue guidance and oppose the Opposition amendment.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government 3:30, 11 June 2009

Tomorrow, every member of the Committee will peruse the Hansard report of the debate—we know that no member can get enough of the proceedings—and see that the Minister clearly was not listening to my remarks when I moved the amendment, because I opened by referring to subsections (6) and (7).

On her point about guidance, it is perfectly true that we wish to give local authorities the freedom not to follow the guidance, but as I said in my introductory remarks, we would also remove from the Secretary of State the requirement to consult representatives of local government before the guidance is issued, thus saving everyone the circular process the Minister has invented and put in the Bill. She seems to have given us no reason not to press the amendment.

I heard what the Minister said in relation to amendment 61, which we tabled in a probing spirit. Were it possible for us to withdraw that amendment, but put the other two to the vote, which is at your discretion, Mr. Illsley, that is ideally what we would do.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon

Can I be clear about what the Minister said? She said that there would be guidance, but if that guidance is to embrace all the circumstances that prevail across England with regard to economic needs, it seems to me that that has to be either prescriptive, in which case it should not be done, or so flexible as to embrace every single circumstance, in which case I cannot see the point of having the guidance at all. Surely the sensible thing to do is let the units producing the guidance determine their priorities. I am sure that she will find that the danger of having some form of framework is that people will feel obliged to tick boxes that might not be relevant in their circumstances, which is bothersome.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

I do not accept that. It is important that we can, for example, refer to the need to ensure that a local community’s skills are adequate for getting jobs in local businesses or to look at the requirements with which local businesses themselves come forward. There are some good examples of the work done through skills boards in assessing local economic needs, ensuring local education is geared towards meeting those needs and, looking to the future, determining whether businesses are saying that they feel investment or skills training is needed and how that fits into an overall strategy. That must be done through consultation with organisations by local authorities. It does not have to be overly prescriptive, but it needs to set out some general areas that local authorities might wish to take into account when drawing up an economic assessment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows the type of areas that are likely to be covered, but it is important that we work with local authority organisations to get their views on what will be most helpful in guidance and on what the parameters from central Government and regional government should be, which would also be helpful.

Photo of David Curry David Curry Conservative, Skipton and Ripon

I simply remark that it seems inconceivable that any quarter-witted council would produce an economic strategy that did not take into consideration the skills needs of local business.

Photo of Eric Illsley Eric Illsley Labour, Barnsley Central

Does the hon. Member for Wycombe wish to rise and withdraw amendment 61?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 62, in clause 66, page4 9, line 27, leave out from ‘council’ to end of line 28 and insert

‘it shall act in partnership with the district council or district councils for that area in discharging its functions under this section.’.—(Mr. Goodman.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Division number 30 Nimrod Review — Statement — Clause 66

Aye: 5 MPs

No: 8 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 63, in clause 66, page 49, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—(Mr. Goodman.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Division number 31 Nimrod Review — Statement — Clause 66

Aye: 5 MPs

No: 8 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 66, page 50, line 8, at end insert—

‘( ) When conducting an assessment under this Part, a principal local authority must consider the impact on the social, environmental and economic well-being of the authority’s area, including where applicable (but not limited to) the effect on ports, caused by non-domestic rating revaluations.’.

This takes us back to the start of the debate, so I will be brief. One of the questions that we considered at the start was whether the assessment should go wider than the economy and take into account other factors, which is what this amendment states.

Photo of Julia Goldsworthy Julia Goldsworthy Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I am sympathetic with what the amendment tries to achieve, but I do not know whether it is necessary, given what the clause already sets out. Clearly, port authorities are a very important aspect of the local economy. However, given what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has said about any council with half a brain doing certain things, I think that any council that is taking any process such as this seriously, regardless of whether or not it is required to do so, would consider the impact on its port authority,  if it had one within its area. I am not entirely sure whether the amendment is necessary or whether the hon. Gentleman will want to press it.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton Minister of State (Regional Affairs) (Yorkshire and the Humber), Minister of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) (also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination); (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government)

I will match the commendable brevity of the hon. Member for Wycombe by saying that the amendment is not appropriate. Such matters, which should be addressed in local economic assessments, should not be placed in the Bill, because it would unnecessarily constrain local authorities and make it more difficult to us to respond to changing economic priorities in the future. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Photo of Paul Goodman Paul Goodman Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government

I have been so brief, the Minister has been so brief and everyone has been so brief that I do not think that we can press this matter to a vote. However, this is a matter to which we may return at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Division number 32 Nimrod Review — Statement — Clause 66

Aye: 9 MPs

No: 4 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr. Watts.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 16 October at half past Ten o’clock.