I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 8—Local enterprise partnerships—
I believe that Mr Ward had just started to intervene on the Minister when the Committee adjourned this morning, so I cannot tell him that his intervention is too long for a few seconds yet.
Thank you, Mr Bayley.
May I set the tone for this afternoon’s sitting by dealing with common ground? I think there is a general acknowledgment that we want local enterprise partnerships to succeed. We have gone through the history—
Order. May I guide the hon. Gentleman? He appears to be making a winding-up speech, but I understood that he was making an intervention to question the Minister.
I was just refreshing everyone’s memory.
We are now fully refreshed, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was going to put a question to the Minister.
The question was: given the common ground on supporting LEPs—we want them to succeed—and the acknowledgement that the duty to co-operate needs to be beefed up a little, does it not seem strange that the LEPs are not statutorily required to be part of that duty?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for refreshing our memories. A lot has happened since we last met. I told the Committee that the LEPs cover 70% of the population, and, as if by magic, the figure is now 87%.
Keep talking.
Subject to the Whips, if we are here much longer, we might get to the 100% I believe the Opposition were looking for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East captured the essence of our proceedings. We note that he and the Opposition might not have abolished the regional development agencies, but given that that is happening, we have a common interest in ensuring that the arrangements that replace them are as successful as possible.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) rose—
I give way to the hon. Lady, who also wanted to catch my eye towards the end of this morning’s sitting.
I want to raise a point of information first. The Minister said that Manchester covers Salford constituencies, but it does not. Salford is a city in its own right that sits at the side of Manchester. The LEP might be shared, but Manchester definitely never covers Salford.
My question is about our concern over the signals the Government are sending over LEPs—that is the crux of what we are saying. We talked about the north-west, and Lancashire does not have an LEP, although it is a large area where regeneration and growth are important. Does not the Minister have concerns? We might be at 87%, but what about the 13%? There is no regeneration or growth going on, and very mixed signals are being sent out.
I should have referred to Greater Manchester rather than the city of Manchester. I know from friends and colleagues in Manchester that such differences are very important.
I am very familiar with the situation in Lancashire, as is the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). There is great appetite in Lancashire, on the part of businesses and Lancashire Members from all parties, to form an arrangement that, I think, is almost there. The discussion has been about whether there should be a single LEP for Lancashire or whether, to reflect some of the differences in local identity and different conceptions of economic geography to which the hon. Lady alludes, two LEPs for Lancashire would be the best approach. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen that the arrangements are up and running. We will have further discussions about that, so I certainly do not expect Lancashire to be without a local enterprise partnership—far from it. In fact, the proposals that we have seen are vigorously in the opposite direction, which is why they have such strong adherence. I am confident that the local people will be able to reach a unified view about the arrangements that should be in place.
May I come back to our earlier discussion about London? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is precisely London that has accounted for the rapid growth in the coverage of LEPs since our debate this morning. I welcome the creation of a LEP to cover the whole region of London—the area that is covered by the Greater London authority. That seems to be a proper recognition of the role of economic development across London. However, there is a question about Croydon, on which the hon. Member for Croydon Central might be able to give us clarification. Is Croydon part of the London LEP, part of the coast to capital LEP, which I think it was proposing, or part of both? [ Interruption. ] If it is part of both, is the Minister confident that there is not some double counting here?
I will check the arithmetic, but I am sure that there has been no double counting. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman asks the question because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central indicated from a sedentary position, it is indeed part of both, which is a significant reflection of the natural economic geography that we were talking about before lunch. As my hon. Friend knows, Croydon is very much part of London, but it is also part of an innovative proposal: the coast to capital LEP, which takes in a swathe of business activity with a lot in common from Croydon through to Gatwick and down to the south coast. This helps illustrate why the understandable desire to—[ Interruption. ] Does my hon. Friend the Whip want to intervene?
Carry on, but keep it brief.
I am devastated that the Whip is not taking as close an interest in my remarks as I might hope, but—[ Interruption. ]
Order. It is extremely unusual for a Chair to have to tell a Minister who has the floor that there is too much chatter going on in the room.
I will bring my remarks to a more rapid conclusion, which I am sure which will meet the approval of the Whip—the pecking order is clear.
It is right and proper that Croydon is part of both LEPs. Both are partnerships. Croydon will contribute to them both, and that is why we are taking this approach. If this were to be defined in statute in the way proposed, difficulties would be created that would hinder that.
I take to heart the suggestions of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington and for Worsley and Eccles South. In the spirit of what we have said before, we want the duty to co-operate to be meaningful and significant. It is important that matters of local economic co-operation are adequately reflected in the powers. We have had evidence from different groups—whether from the Local Government Association or from planners—that capturing this duty to co-operate by creating LEPs in a statutory form might not be the right approach. However, I will reflect on our debate and come back on Report with some suggestions as to how to deal with these matters.
At the risk of incurring the displeasure of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, I shall touch briefly on the particular point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington made about the sale of assets of the RDAs. It is absolutely right that the sale of any Government asset should protect value for money for the taxpayer. We are required to do that: it is the taxpayers’ investment and the taxpayers’ funds. The process that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is conducting will ensure that the local groups who might have an interest in taking on these assets have the chance to make a proper case. It will also meet the principle in the growth White Paper that assets and liabilities should be taken together so that there is no possibility—which was envisaged—of toxic assets, with liabilities left with local communities and the assets spirited away. It is important that the two are managed together. The Public Accounts Committee requires an approach that emphasises value for money, and I hope that hon. Members accept my assurance that our intention is that the arrangements will secure that.
We accept, and want to promote, the importance of local economic co-operation in the duty to co-operate, and I will come back with suggestions about how that might happen Given those reassurances, I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East withdraws the amendment.
On the basis of those welcome comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.