Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

I rise to speak to our new clause 16, which would give local councils a power of general competence, as the Minister said, and our new clause 15, which seeks to delegate power to local authorities. As new clause 16 is related to Government new clauses 19 and 20 and Government amendments 28 and 29, as the Minister observed, I shall turn to them before dealing with our new clause 16, which goes wider. Before I do that, however, let me pause to say, following the Minister's remarks, that we will listen carefully to the debate on new clauses 1 and 9. I am familiar with the arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in Committee. Our Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is looking closely at the matter raised by new clause 9. The Minister made a reasonable point about the undesirability of putting new burdens on local authorities on to the statute book, but our view is not carved in stone and we will listen carefully to what she has to say. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), I welcome back the Minister. She is the one fixed point in the turning world of the Government Front Bench. Since Committee we sadly seem to have lost the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), but it is good to see the right hon. Lady in her place. The Minister went through the background to Government new clauses 19 and 20 in some detail, and there is no need for me to repeat her in taking us through the LAML case and what happened in court. However, it may be worth pointing out that LAML is an all-party body, in that Conservative-controlled councils such as Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Harrow are members. Also, both the Local Government Association and Chris Leslie, the director of the New Local Government Network and a former and—who knows?—perhaps future Member of this House, were disappointed with the judgment. It is also worth pointing out that in response to the Government's consultation paper on strengthening local democracy—of which more later—the LGA said that the""CLG's proposals in response to the LAML case…are quite unsatisfactory. Specific legislation on mutual insurance would do nothing to tackle the wider limitations of the existing well-being power which the case has highlighted."" Let me pause at this point and say to the Minister that we are inclined to give her new clauses a fair wind. She made much of the fact that our new clause to introduce a new power of a general competence would not do the trick on mutual insurance. Our answer is that we are not seeking—at least not at this stage—to delete her provisions on mutual insurance, so they would stand. However, we have a couple of questions and concerns that are worth raising. We are curious to know whether the Department has made any assessment, as it should have, of any risks to local authorities. We have received indications from some sources of that possibility, so we are curious to know what the Minister thinks about that. Also, new clause 19(5) refers to guidance. If the Minister has not already told the House when she intends to issue that guidance, it would be welcome if she did so. An examination of the clauses on mutual insurance naturally leads us to the wider subject of the power of general competence. I am afraid that that leads me to quote the LGA—and, indeed, Chris Leslie—again. It said that the LAML judgment demonstrated "weaknesses" in""the scope of the 'well-being' power. This adds to the need for legislation to create a power of general competence for local government. This is essential in order to regain the flexible power it was believed the Local Government Act 2000 had created"." In its response to the consultation that I mentioned a moment ago, the LGA expressed its support for a""general duty to devolve"," and criticised""the weak approach taken to the flaws in the power of well-being, where both we and the CLG Select Committee have advocated a new power of general competence."" The LGA went on to repeat that point in its briefing on the Bill. I am sorry to quote Chris Leslie again, but he has said:""There is an apparent consensus in Parliament across all parties in favour of a 'power of general competence' for local authorities."" That is certainly true among the Conservatives. We have set out the desirability of such a power in our document "Control Shift". That was also the view of the Liberal Democrats when we debated these matters in Committee, although that seems a very long time ago. I am not sure that the Government have joined that consensus, however. Their view as stated in Committee was that""more needs to be done to encourage local authorities to use the well-being power".––[Official Report, Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2009; c. 253.]" The Minister also said in Committee that she was interested in having discussions with local authorities about powers, and she essentially gave the same answer today. Our judgment is that, given the views of the LGA and the New Local Government Network, and the consensus that is emerging, if there is no good reason not to put a power of general competence on the statute book, simply having further ministerial discussions between the Department and the local authorities does not seem to justify postponing a vote on the matter. We tabled a number of probing amendments in Committee, and we took the view that, if the Minister could persuade us that they were deficient and would have an effect other than the one that we sought, we would not press them to a vote. We did not do so. She did not suggest today that our proposal was deficient in any way. As I have said, we are not proposing to block her proposals on mutual insurance. I therefore give notice that we might seek to press our new clause 16 to a vote. Speaking of pressing matters to a vote brings me to new clause 15, which deals with the delegation of powers to local authorities. The Minister spoke about that earlier, and I want to put it into the context of the structure established by the Bill, which was debated on Second Reading and which we considered in Committee. Part 5 of the Bill sets out a regional strategy, and it is worth examining it in the context of the Department's own view of the representations that it received in response to the sub-national review. Its response stated that the Government""expect the RDAs to delegate responsibility for spending to local authorities or sub-regions wherever possible unless there is a clear case for returning spending to the regional level"." It is in that spirit that we have tabled new clause 15, which would enable Ministers to carry out precisely the kind of delegating power that the Secretary of State might think necessary. It would require the Secretary of State to make proposals with RDAs for a scheme of delegation for the discharge of their functions—such as housing or planning—to a local authority or a group of local authorities. If I am a bit hesitant about these functions, it is because—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out in Committee—the Department's own policy document on regional strategies states, as early as paragraph 2.2 that the Bill""does not specify what the regional strategy should contain."" At any rate, our new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to discharge functions, having consulted two local authorities. The Minister frequently argued in Committee that the powers of Westminster and Whitehall should be given due weight. She really cannot complain today that our new clause 15 does not do that. Ultimately, it gives the Secretary of State the power to make the proposals for the delegation of responsibility, as the Department's response to the sub-national review indicated that it wants to. The Local Government Association said in a further comment on the consultation paper that""partnerships of local authorities have far more direct accountability than the plethora of national and regional quangos that currently make decisions that affect local people."" I think that the LGA has the balance of that judgment right, which is why I give notice that we may well press the new clause to the vote. As is traditional on these occasions, I end by quoting the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who always puts things more bluntly and directly than I could. What he said on Second Reading has gone down in the annals of Hansard and the House should be reminded of it:""Most people have had enough of this. Why can we not cut away this plethora of bodies and focus on democratically elected authorities… That is why I say to her"—" not the present Minister but the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), when she was Secretary of State—""that this is complete nonsense and that we have had enough… of… all these buzzwords. I say take it back."—[Official Report, 1 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 35.]" On the Conservative Benches, we can do no more than echo that blunt and direct language. As I said, unless the Minister has any further revelations for us, we intend to press our new clauses to the vote.