Ms
Winterton: 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.
Mr.
Goodman: When the Minister reads Hansard tomorrow,
she will find that, in fact, the first part of my remarks was on
subsections (6) and
(7).
Ms
Winterton: 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. 3.30
pm
Mr.
Goodman: 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.
Mr.
Curry: 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.
Ms
Winterton: 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.
Mr.
Curry: 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.
The
Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Wycombe wish to rise
and withdraw amendment
61?
Mr.
Goodman: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
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
No.
30]
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
No.
31] Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Goodman: 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.
Julia
Goldsworthy: 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.
Ms
Winterton: 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.
Mr.
Goodman: 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
No.
32] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 66
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned.—(Mr.
Watts.) 3.40
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 16 October at half past Ten
o’clock.
|
