Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Mr. Eric Illsley, † Mr. David Amess

† Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

† Curry, Mr. David (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Dunne, Mr. Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

† Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

Gardiner, Barry (Brent, North) (Lab)

† Goldsworthy, Julia (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD)

† Goodman, Mr. Paul (Wycombe) (Con)

† Heppell, Mr. John (Nottingham, East) (Lab)

† Jackson, Mr. Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

Lilley, Mr. Peter (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

† McCarthy-Fry, Sarah (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Raynsford, Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)

† Stewart, Ian (Eccles) (Lab)

† Watts, Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Winterton, Ms Rosie (Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination)

Mick Hillyard, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column number: 135

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 16 June 2009

(Morning)

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

LD 05 Campaign to Protect Rural England

LD 06 Mobile Operators Association

Clause 67

Regional strategy

10.30 am

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 67, page 50, line 13, at end insert—

‘( ) the Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the existing regional boundaries as currently defined within 6 months of the commencement of the Act.’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 122, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, leave out ‘its’ and insert ‘the’.

Amendment 123, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, at end insert ‘or regions which it covers’.

New clause 18—Number of Regional Development Agencies

‘In section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 for subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under this section include alterations that result in a reduction or increase in the number of regions in that Schedule, where the order has been made following a request from one or more local authorities under section [Regional Development Agency boundaries] of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”’.

New clause 19—Regional Development Agency boundaries

‘(1) A local authority may request a review under section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act of the extent of the Regional Development Agency area of which it is a part.

(2) If the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (2), he must—

(a) undertake a review, or

(b) make publicly available the reasons for refusing the request.’.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to be here with you, Mr. Amess. As I walked towards Westminster this sunny morning, I was delighted to know that I would be spending it in Committee discussing the Bill, and I am sure that all hon. Members feel that way.

Column number: 136

The former Secretary of State referred to getting the architecture right in introducing the Bill, and many people in the real world will feel that we have not got it right. A regular gripe when considering the south-west regional spatial strategy—the one with which I am most familiar, for obvious reasons—is that the region does not make sense and that attempts to come up with strategies across an area as geographically large and economically diverse as the south-west is not necessarily the way forward. The approach has been to identify sub-regional areas within that and to develop them.

It has been my view and that of many people across the south-west—I am sure that the situation will be similar in other regions—that regions that were set up back in the 1980s for various purposes, including Government purposes, might not necessarily be the right way to proceed. Therefore, regional development agencies that operate along those boundaries might not be the right way to go. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne seek to promote a debate about whether those regions are the right way to proceed. They also seek to put in place procedures that would stimulate that discussion and enable principally local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to come up with suggestions about what the natural regions really are. We might therefore have RDAs that mirror those natural regions, as well as reflecting Government arrangements.

Since the failure of the north-east referendum to convince people that elected regional authorities are the way to go—certainly in that part of the country—we have been in a limbo state in which RDAs and regional assemblies have muddled along, trying to persuade people that they have the authority to take important decisions for the regions that have been constructed for them. It is fair to say that that approach has been greatly criticised.

The Bill gives us the opportunity to build a new regional policy, to look at the current boundaries and decide whether they are correct, and to put in place a mechanism for opening up debate and allowing it to move forward.

Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): This is an extremely important clause because it encapsulates, in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Opposition, the missed opportunity and failure of imagination arising from the sub-national review of July 2007. Ostensibly, the clause is about sustainable economic growth and land use. However, it is also about the Government’s attitude towards, and their relationship with, local authorities and locally elected people, and the question of whether the Government trust them with the authority and autonomy to make decisions in their own areas.

We are clear that we cannot support the clause and will be making the case strongly that it is unnecessary. It was apparent from the public consultation, leading on from the sub-national review, that what local authorities and other key stakeholders wanted was more power to be devolved locally and less to be given to unelected quangos. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, the architecture of the clause as outlined in the Bill is extremely important, because it will establish a regional strategy made up of regional development agencies and leaders’ boards, which are not what people want.

Column number: 137

Members will know that in February 2009, we published our document entitled “Control Shift—Returning Power to Local Communities”. The Local Government Association has also made significant representation about regional policy, particularly in its document, “Prosperous Communities II—vive la dÃ(c)volution”; not a catchy title, Mr. Amess. We pledged to abolish regional planning and housing powers exercised by regional government; we pledged to strip regional development agencies of their powers over planning and to give powers to local authorities to establish their own local enterprise partnerships to take over the RDA functions.

Dan Rogerson: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is setting out; it is also my party’s determination to support retention as far as possible at local level. Does he share my view that at times, it might be appropriate for there to be pooling between local authorities where there is clear agreement between them about moving forward, and for them to come up with common strategies across areas that, unlike the Government, they might feel form more natural regions?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is as astute as ever in his observation that our policy is indeed about allowing local authorities to work together where there is commonality of interest, particularly on economic matters. One of our key areas of concern about regional policy since 1999 is the lack of recognition of the fact that regional government and policy is a top-down concept and does not take significant account of the particular social, economic and demographic issues that relate between authorities. To take the example of the hon. Gentleman’s own region, the economic issues in west Cornwall might as well be a million miles away—in a different galaxy—from those affecting the Forest of Dean, for instance, or east Dorset. The same is true of Milton Keynes compared with Thanet, in the south-east region.

Regional government has also failed to deliver what was once promised on expenditure, for instance. Some £13 billion was spent by regional development agencies between 1999 and 2008, and salaries have gone from £38 million to £120 million. There has been a 159 per cent. increase in the running costs of RDAs. I will come back to some of those figures later.

I am concerned about the confusion in the Government over the representations of the sub-national review. The Government said, following consultation, that they

“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”.

They also said:

“Legislation is not needed to deliver the spirit of the sub-national review reforms.”

At the same time, officials in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform were advising the Department for Communities and Local Government that

“RDAs cannot delegate responsibility for the spending of their budget...RDAs will still have to formally approve projects proposed by sub-regional partners and we will be accountable for them.”

There is clearly a tension in the Government between their public protestations about devolving local power to local councils and key stakeholders and what is being said in central Government, which is effectively that the purse strings, power, influence and decision making will remain central.

Column number: 138

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is highlighting another important distinction to be made between delegated and devolved decision making. It seems that a lot of the RDAs are simply implementing Government policy, which is a delegated process, rather than giving discretion to local authorities to decide what resources are spent on and how the decisions are taken.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. In a nutshell, that is the difficulty of this clause on the regional strategy.

The Local Government Association estimated in the recent report that I quoted that there are 50 sub-national functional areas in England. Decision making needs to be taken at that level. Below the national level, markets for goods and services, housing and labour operate at the sub-regional or city regional level. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made that point when discussing tourism and the diversity of the local economy in North Yorkshire, as opposed, for instance, to west or south Yorkshire, and the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central responded.

On the other noteworthy issue in the clause, we have been prevailed upon by the Campaign to Protect Rural England to ask whether the clause is only about delivering housing targets. Is it only about residential development and a top-down approach of cramming as much housing into key areas as possible, or is it truly about sustainable economic growth? Sustainable economic growth—growth that can be sustained and that is within environmental limits—is included in public sector delivery agreement 7, but it is not in the Bill. Will the Minister address that issue in respect of the clause?

We will not be voting for the clause. We do not have time to discuss the philosophical and ideological differences between us and the Government; suffice it to say that they have had 10 years to devolve power truly and to give people responsibility for directing events in their own locales and districts. The clause does not do anything to give the electorate faith and trust in our shattered political system. Indeed, it centralises power among unelected, unaccountable people, which is something local people do not want. They want decisions made in their community to link back directly to the decisions they make at the ballot box. I fear that the clause will set back the cause of devolution and local autonomy.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I took the precaution yesterday of reading the policy document on regional strategies issued by the Department specifically for the purposes of the Bill. Frankly, anyone reading it can find whatever they are looking for in it. It is like a vast fishing pond. One is pretty sure to net something, but some very bizarre species come out of it. To begin with, paragraph 2.2 says:

“The Bill does not specify what the regional strategy should contain”,

although most of the rest of the document goes on to do so.

“Overall, the aim should be for a concise and succinct document.”

Well, hope springs eternal in the human breast.

“Although the responsible regional authorities must have regard to national policies and guidance issued by Government, it is expected specific policies would only be included in the regional strategy if there is a genuine and distinctive regional or sub-regional dimension. The regional strategy should not repeat national

Column number: 139

policy or guidance. Instead, the content would be driven by regionally specific issues that join up with national priorities. While the form and format of the regional strategy and the level of detail for any given topic is for each region to decide, it is expected that economic objectives, housing, climate change and renewable and low-carbon energy would receive particular focus.”

10.45 am

If we read further down, we find that the strategy is required to have a section dealing with sports, culture and media. I am not sure whether the Yorkshire regional strategy is going to opine on whether Leeds United were wrongly demoted, or whether or not they should be promoted into the premiership. I think that the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination and I might find a rare moment of agreement on what happened to Leeds United.

I am also not sure whether the north-west strategy should opine on whether it was wise to sell Ronaldo and who Manchester United ought to acquire as an alternative to him. Of course, if we are dealing with sport, TÃ(c)vez’s situation is a subject of major regional preoccupation. As far as the south-west is concerned, I am aware that the football team is of more relatively local interest. I do not wish to upset my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, but I am not aware that they have featured recently—

Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Amess, the right hon. Gentleman goes too far when he seeks to bring real politics into the debate by talking about Manchester United. Can you make sure that he stops it?

---

Prepared 17 June 2009