Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I have three amendments in this group, two of which are probing. They are all along similar lines to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The Minister might be surprised that there were only three amendments, and I hope that she will be relieved when I explain that we have finally come to a part of the Bill that does not upset us as much as some other parts. We have already made our position clear on economic prosperity boards—that we are not particularly in favour of them, and we would rather have them looking more like MAAs. By that, I mean that if local authorities wish to combine for particular purposes, and it is not enforced—this is along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—they should be free to do so. In fact, I had to leave Committee for a while earlier because I had a long-arranged meeting with Kent to talk about transport issues. That is the sort of thing that MAAs should be about. There is no need for any kind of prescription. Most local authorities will want to work through MAAs and work with authorities that have similar problems. That is why, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we are concerned about some of the issues in the Bill. I suggest that MAAs, as envisaged here, seem to be little more than a mechanism for implementing improvement targets. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I ask the Minister to comment on that. Amendment 201 is designed to emphasise our belief that MAAs should be voluntary, along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. If they are truly voluntary, they would be more openly embraced by local authorities, which would spend more time considering the values of working on common problems with their colleagues. I have refrained from tabling amendments to Part 7 which would replicate earlier concerns expressed by us throughout the Bill as to the overbearing role of the Secretary of State. That is not because we are now reconciled to the Secretary of State’s role, but because we feel that we have made the point. I hope that the noble Baroness and the Government are reflecting on that before we get to further stages of this legislation. She could reassure me further by accepting the amendment and by ensuring that the Bill will make clear that MAAs are there for the purpose of helping local authorities better to achieve their targets, rather than tying them into agreements that they simply do not wish to have. On the matter of targets, I have tabled two probing amendments—Amendments 199 and 200—which depend on one another. By tabling them I do not wish Members of the Committee to think that I am calling for local authorities to ignore improvement targets deliberately, but the Bill seems particularly inflexible. Must all improvement targets be paid equal regard? Does not the nature of a target allow for discretion? Will the Minister furnish the Committee with a likely example of improvement targets so that we can better understand what is being set up in the agreements? As I said, this is a probing amendment, asked in the spirit of curiosity so that we can have more details of the Government’s version of an MAA to consider.