Sustainable Communities Bill

I do not think that anyone in the Chamber intends to press new clause 6 to a Division. However, what we say about it will be important, as there will be further discussion in the other place. In addition, as the Bill proceeds through the other place, as I hope it will, there will be wider public discussion. It is important that we tease out the difference of substance that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) ably began to expose. Almost the only difference, although it is crucial, between new clause 6, which my hon. Friend tabled—it is supported by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and, morally at least, by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy)—and new clause 1, which was tabled by the Minister, lies in new clause 6(4), especially paragraph (b). New clause 1 will allow, as would new clause 6(2), the function carried out by a public body through expenditure identified in the local report to be sought by the local authority. So far so good. The problem is that new clause 1 does not make it clear both that the money follows the function and, critically, that in the use of the money that follows the function, the local authority to which the function has been transferred should have the ability to achieve the objectives of that function via a different method from that determined for the public or central authority whose functions have been transferred to the local authority. If that sounds like a complicated sentence, let me try to crystallise the argument in a simple example that the Minister and I constructively discussed in Committee. I said:"““a local authority might feel in a particular case that the general objective of promoting more sustainable small and growing business””—" the very example cited by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne—"““would be better achieved by providing people with something completely different””," such as something completely different from what Business Link, acting on behalf of the Government, was proposing as the means of supporting local business. I went on to say:"““We want a position whereby if the business link group does not feel that the local authority is proposing the right kind of thing, then so long as the area is not defined as primarily nationally significant the local authority will have the presumption of getting the Secretary of State’s approval to take over the spending.””" My remarks on such matters are neither here nor there because the Minister has the power and it is what he says that matters. He said:"““I agree and would go slightly further. The best way of promoting small business in an area might be to provide a youth club for 19-year-olds… As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, the point is the outcome…If the best way of creating small businesses is to build a youth club so that there is access to young people, which is what I want to achieve, that is desirable.””" I said:"““I do not know whether this is a parliamentary term…but my response to that is ‘bingo!’””––[Official Report, Sustainable Communities Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2007; c. 148.]" That was my response because it seemed then that the Minister accepted that we were not just talking about a power grab, whereby a local authority took over a function and carried on business as usual, albeit in its hands, but that we were actually talking about whether a local authority could decide not to spend the money the way that Business Link spent it, or the way that Business Link’s remit determined that it should be spent—to put it in the terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood—but to spend in another way, which the local authority thought was the best way to promote local business, given the agenda of promoting local sustainable communities. The crucial difference between new clauses 1 and 6 is that new clause 6(4)(b) precisely spells out that"““any local authority to which the functions are transferred may determine the policies to deliver the objectives of the function, having regard to the authority’s own community strategy.””" If the Minister is going to tell us that we do not need to spell that out because the transfer of functions allowed by new clause 6(2) or new clause 1(3) will automatically and implicitly not only allow a local authority to determine the policies to deliver the objectives of the function, but give the local authority the money to carry out the function, thus fulfilling the purpose of new clause 6(4)(a), it seems to me there will be ample room to achieve agreement in the other place on drafting that will leave that in no doubt. We do not need to do that today—we can do it later. If the Minister agrees that there will be a shift of not only the function, but the money, and that the local authority will be able to decide how that money should be spent, we can achieve agreement on the drafting anon. If, on the contrary, the Minister actually believes that new clause 1(3) and new clause 6(2) do not automatically imply that—I do not think that they do—we have a point of enormous substance between us, which we shall have to continue to discuss over the summer. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister, or his successor, will eventually change his or her mind, because otherwise the Bill’s main purpose cannot be fulfilled. If a transfer of function merely allows a local authority to be and to do exactly the same thing as the central authority was being and doing, nothing will be achieved. That will not get us to where we need to be. Given that that is the main point of the Bill, we will have to keep discussing the matter until it is crystallised in another place. The Government will have to decide whether they are for or against the aims of the Bill. What we must not have is a fudge where it looks like we have the Bill, but in fact we have a Bill that does not do the job that it is meant to do. That is why the Minister’s comments about new clause 6 will be important.