HC Deb 03 February 1998 vol 305 cc928-46
Mr. Llwyd

I beg to move amendment No. 469, in page 53, line 14, at end insert— '(1A) The Assembly shall have regard to the published plans and strategies of local authorities in Wales in making decisions which specifically affect the communities of those local authorities.'. Let me begin by saying—at the risk of drawing fire from the Conservative Front Bench—that clause 110 is welcomed by anyone who respects local government and the need to develop and nurture the relationship between it and the national assembly.

The clause requires the assembly to provide a scheme to sustain and promote local government and requires it to form a partnership council with representatives of local government. I firmly believe that the effective governance of Wales will require a working partnership between local government, the voluntary sector and the national assembly. The clause creates a framework within which local government and the national assembly can share understanding, objectives and a programme of agreed action. The framework will not avoid all differences—nor should it—but it will allow the potential for resolution through dialogue.

The clause also allows a partnership between local government collectively and the assembly. It does not refer to the need for the assembly and its agencies to consider the objectives of individual local authorities. Elsewhere, the Government recognise the role of each local authority in providing community leadership, working with local communities to identify needs and priorities and developing local plans and strategies that can lead and assist all organisations seeking to work in those communities.

The briefing issued by the Welsh Local Government Association states: The Association believes that it is in the development of community leadership that local authorities can most enhance their contribution. However, it is not enough for local authorities to provide leadership, there needs to be an incentive for other parts of government to consider the leadership that is provided. No doubt the assembly will have executive roles that will directly affect specific local communities. For instance, it will take over Tai Cymru's role in financing social housing development. At present, Tai Cymru is required by the Secretary of State to have regard to the housing strategies of local authorities. It is suggested, therefore, that the assembly, in this and all other executive actions, should be required to have regard to the plans and strategies of local authorities in specific decisions that affect local communities.

The amendment is straightforward, clear and easy to understand. It would not affect the development of national policies by the national assembly, but it would require it, in specific decisions following on from those policies, to have regard to the plans and strategies of local authorities in Wales. That would not give local authorities any right of instruction or veto, but give them some assurance that, when they invest in the development of local strategies, those strategies will have some influence and will not be ignored in, as it were, the painting of the larger picture.

In essence, the system would be little different from that whereby central Government need to have regard to local structure plans in determining planning issues, for example. Indeed, planning appeals could not be held without proper and due regard to local structure plans that are considered to be of extreme importance.

To put it another way, the amendment is the essence of subsidiarity in statutory form. Furthermore, it adds clarity to the statement, welcome though it is, that the national assembly is bound to sustain and to promote local government. I suspect that, at some point, the word "otiose" will be mentioned by someone over yonder—who has left the Chamber, so we are spared its use for the time being—but I would appreciate a detailed response from the Minister.

Dr. Marek

I have general sympathy with what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) proposes, but I cannot support it. The principal reason is that we are legislating for a national assembly; we should give it status and authority and assume that it will carry out its functions properly—and not try to tie it down in primary legislation. I have made that point before.

I have every confidence that the national assembly will want to work in partnership with local councils. From that point of view, it is better for that to be done through the assembly's Standing Orders, procedures and traditions as they develop, rather than through legislation passed through this Chamber that tries to tie the assembly down to something that it should be doing itself. I hope that, as a result of that general point, or perhaps as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister says, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

There are other problems with the amendment. At present, structure plans have to be accepted by the Secretary of State, possibly with an examination in public. Structure plans will, however, be the creature of the national assembly, so it is highly unlikely that the assembly will, in a cavalier manner, dismiss a structure plan for a particular unitary authority and try to impose something else. If it does that, it may have a particular reason, but that is by the way because the amendment says that the assembly has to "have regard to" and, of course, it can have regard to something and then nevertheless decide something contrary.

Unitary authority decisions can be cavalier in the extreme. Eight or 10 years ago, a Welsh Affairs Committee investigation found that three authorities—Anglesey, Cardiganshire, or Ceredigion, and Delyn—had policies on housing in the countryside, but disregarded them. There were departures from the local plan to such an extent that they prompted comment and an investigation by the Select Committee.

I have confidence in local authorities, which I support. The National Assembly for Wales must have oversight, and it should be able to take a view without having to face a judicial review. It should not be constrained too much by a local authority's strategic policies that do not make good sense or to which it does not abide, or because the policies that the authority is implementing are not in writing. The issue is complicated. I have no wish to offend anybody, but I have to say that there are good and bad councillors, as I guess there are good Members and bad ones.

The assembly must have respect and status and it must have the final say. I do not wish to have its powers trammelled by the amendment. I sympathise with some of the aims behind the amendment, but I am convinced that the assembly's Standing Orders will contain precisely the amendment's principle.

Mr. Liwyd

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the words "due regard" in the amendment. They mean that the amendment would not bind the assembly in any way. It is an attempt to ensure a healthy and developing partnership between local government and the assembly. That is my aim, and I do not wish to fetter the assembly in any way. The wording of the amendment supports my argument rather than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Marek

We could argue about that, but time is short. We are close to the fulcrum of the argument. I prefer the route that I have suggested, but the hon. Gentleman would go the other way. Let us hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Öpik

The Liberal Democrats fully support the amendment because local government often feels frustrated and unable to vent its feelings to higher authority. The amendment creates a direct, formal requirement for the assembly to listen to local government throughout Wales. The benefit of such networking cannot be underestimated. Local government officers and councillors often have to implement decisions made higher up, but there is every reason to suppose that they can add value to assembly debates as national Welsh policy is formed.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke about good and bad councillors. We should set our sights on having good councillors in Wales and good Members of the Assembly. We must assume that the public know what they are doing when they vote and that the people they elect are capable of adding the sort of value that I have described. The hon. Gentleman also said that the amendment would tie the assembly's hands. I disagree: a visionary and self-confident assembly would recognise the merit of hearing views from outside the assembly—from those who often have to bear the brunt of public dissatisfaction about bad decisions. If the assembly believes in itself, it should also believe in the ability of local government to improve decision making. Come on Minister, give us confidence that you have faith in local government by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths

As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said when he ably moved and spoke to his amendment, its purpose is to place a statutory duty on the assembly to have regard to the published plans and strategies of Welsh local authorities when taking decisions that will affect particular communities. It is to be expected that the assembly will always attempt to ensure that its actions and decisions are sensitive to local needs and aspirations.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the abolition of Tai Cymru and the assignment of its housing function, ultimately, to the Welsh assembly. As he said, Tai Cymru provides finance after engaging in a process in which it pays due regard to local authorities' housing strategies. It also provides a good example of how a partnership can work without specific statutory goals or requirements. Furthermore, such a partnership exists also in the planning sphere.

9.15 pm

The amendment is unnecessary, particularly because the Bill provides for a Partnership Council. The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) raised important issues that should be examined in the context of the Partnership Council, which will call for the assembly to work closely with local authorities in a spirit of partnership, with mutual respect for each other's role. Discussions at the council are likely to cover the key strategic issues that face the assembly and the major quangos in Wales, which provide an important interface for local authorities.

We have to look ahead a little further. The Government have separate proposals for strengthening local government that, this summer, will be the subject of a White Paper for Wales. I cannot reveal the contents of the White Paper—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on."] As I am in Committee and not at a press conference, perhaps I can say one or two things.

The White Paper is likely to propose a duty on local authorities to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of local communities. Ultimately, that proposal will enable individual local authorities to influence more effectively the local plans and priorities of a wide range of public bodies. We believe that the proposal, combined with the Partnership Council, will adequately address the issues raised by amendment No. 469, which would take a step too far the already innovative and ambitious project of a partnership between central and local government. The Government have already introduced that partnership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already signed an agreement on how it will work between local government and the Welsh Office.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that part of the purpose of his amendment is to achieve a healthy and developing partnership between central and local government. Because of the actions of my right hon. Friend, the Bill's proposal to establish a Partnership Council and proposals in the White Paper— which will be published early in the summer—to strengthen the role of local authorities, we believe that the amendment is a step too far.

I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will accept that the Government have a very positive agenda and that his amendment—although we are sympathetic to its desired aim—is not strictly necessary.

Mr. Llwyd

We have had a short but interesting debate, and the Minister's response has been quite encouraging. It is also getting late. If I had know about the imminent White Paper I might not have tabled the amendment. In the new spirit of inclusiveness, we get to hear things a bit earlier nowadays. Perhaps it will be earlier still in future. Bearing that in mind and the fact that we have had a useful debate and a positive response from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans

I beg to move amendment No. 355, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 42.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 376.

No. 359, in schedule 7, page 84, leave out from beginning of line 3 to end of line 31 on page 85.

Government amendments Nos. 377 and 378.

No. 470, in page 84, line 21, at end insert—

'(1 A) The members appointed under sub paragraph (1) shall include one member nominated by each county council and county borough council in Wales.'. Government amendments Nos. 379 and 380.

No. 358, in page 84, line 35, at end insert—

'(6) Members of the Partnership Council shall not be paid remuneration or expenses by the Assembly, any local authority or otherwise out of public funds in respect of any of their activities as members.'. Government amendments Nos. 381 to 385.

No. 471, in page 85, line 15, leave out 'once' and insert 'three times'.

Government amendment No. 386.

Mr. Evans

We have many amendments to consider in a relatively short debate, but I am delighted to speak to amendments Nos. 355, 359 and 358 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. We have spoken at some length about local government this evening, and it is important for devolution to ensure a vital role for local authorities.

I understand the importance of local authorities as I was a county councillor for six years, first for Sketty and then for Ty Coch, knocking on doors and representing the grass-roots feelings of the people in those areas on West Glamorgan county council. I recall two particular issues on which I sought meetings with the Welsh Office. One concerned the 24-hour opening of the accident and emergency unit at Singleton hospital.

Mr. Ron Davies

When was that?

Mr. Evans

It was between 1985 and 1991—in those halcyon days.

Mr. Davies

That was a long meeting.

Mr. Evans

It was, but we got we wanted in the end. The other meeting concerned some land in the Ty Coch area that we were seeking to prevent from being sold and retain for the use of Sketty school. We were certainly successful in that bid. It is important to have an open-door policy so that local representatives can go to the Welsh Office, as I did in regard to the land in Ty Coch. I saw the then Secretary of State for Wales, David Hunt, who was very receptive to what I, other local councillors and parents at the school had to say.

I assume that in future there will continue to be delegations to the Secretary of State. Some local councillors will lobby the Secretary of State for Wales in regard to his lobbying the Treasury for the biggest possible settlement for Wales. There will also be local authority delegations to the leader of the assembly to ensure that there is no top-slicing and that each area gets as much money as possible.

Clause 110 is disappointing in the extreme, especially in the light of the high goals for the relationship between the two tiers of government that were set out in the White Paper. On page 9, it refers to specific grants to local government in order to promote new initiatives … by providing funding which is not linked to specific services resulting in greater flexibility and discretion for local authorities. It also states that the assembly will gain the trust of the Welsh people only if it conducts its affairs openly and properly. On page 10, it has regard to the interests of local authorities, business, unions and the voluntary sector, and works in partnership with them to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales. On page 15 it says: The Assembly will promote and foster local government in Wales. It promises that both tiers of government will work together to serve the people of Wales. The Government promise to ensure that the Assembly regularly reviews with local government how effectively this commitment"— to fostering local government—

is being observed. We have heard how local government in Wales has been overlooked. That, we are promised, will be replaced by mutual respect from the two bodies for their legitimate roles. After such a build-up, we were disappointed by the Bill. We want a more constructive approach to giving local authorities a proper role and establishing their relationship with the assembly.

Some cynics—not me, obviously—might suggest that the Partnership Council was PC by name and PC by nature. It gives the appearance of fulfilling the White Paper contract, but on closer inspection it fails by a mile to deliver the goods. Clause 111 on voluntary organisations is less prescriptive, allowing the assembly to set up a scheme with complete flexibility, consulting the appropriate bodies.

Clause 110 is more prescriptive. We do not want to delete subsection (1). We agree that a scheme needs to be put in place, but it must be real, not just lip service to creating something. There must be more substance.

What do we see behind the ideal of an inclusive assembly and its balanced relationship with the local authorities in the clause and schedule 7? The assembly will make the Standing Orders. The assembly will set up the Partnership Council. The assembly will decide on the size of the Partnership Council. This is one area in which size counts. There are 22 county councils and county borough councils, as well as other bodies, such as national parks, the police and the fire services, that could be included.

Mr. Llwyd

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will support my amendment, which would provide for one member from each unitary authority in Wales to be on the Partnership Council?

Mr. Evans

No, because our amendments go wider than the nationalist amendments. I would have a troublesome night if I went along with them. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. We do not know the size of the Partnership Council. We know only that there will be equal representation between Members of the Assembly and representatives of other bodies. If the council had 40 members, there would be 20 from each. That would mean that not every local authority could send a representative. The council could be smaller than that—

Mr. Ron Davies

How about 44?

Mr. Evans

Or it could be larger, but even if there were 44 members, there would still be the police, the fire authorities, the national parks and other bodies to be considered.

To give due regard to the regional nature of the Partnership Council, it would be useful if the Bill were more prescriptive. We would like an assurance for people from the regions that they will have representatives on it. The council is an advisory body, so there is nothing to fear. Local government is important throughout Wales, not just in certain parts. All the regions should be represented.

Schedule 7 says: The Partnership Council must meet at least once a year. It is a vital body that will do so much for Wales, bringing the democratic system closer to the people, but the Bill says only that it should meet at least once a year. That is quite pathetic. If we are to set up such a body, I hope that it would meet a little more than once a year.

Mr. Llwyd

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support amendment No. 471, which I tabled, which suggests that the Partnership Council meets three times a year at least?

Mr. Evans

If size is important, frequency is, too. Whereas three times a year would be three times better than the minimum proposed, the hon. Gentleman's amendment still does not go far enough for me. I react to the hon. Gentleman's question in the same way as somebody standing up in a law and order debate at a Conservative conference who says that he wishes to oppose the amendment because it does not go far enough.

9.30 pm
Mr. Swayne

Would it not be preferable if, as the Opposition amendments state, the Partnership Council did not meet at all?

Hon. Members

Ah.

Mr. Evans

Well—[Interruption.] This is an important issue. As the Bill stands, it may be preferable for the Partnership Council not to meet at all. As far as I can see, there are no guarantees of how large the body will be or whether it will be all-inclusive and representative. The only thing proposed for it is in schedule 7: that it should meet at least once a year. That is not good enough. If we are setting up the body, we would hope to give it certain powers.

Mr. Ron Davies

Ah: "we".

Mr. Evans

I speak as one in this Parliament. We are certainly not opposing the advisory Partnership Council; we are saying that it should be improved. It is wonderful to have the Secretary of State in the Chamber for our proceedings. I am grateful that he is present for my speech. If he waits a moment and I am able to elaborate, he might even agree with me. I cannot recall his experience of local government. I am sure that it is longer than mine. I am sure that he also values the role of local authorities in Wales and will want to ensure that, if we are going to the trouble of including the proposal in the Bill, the organisation is meaningful.

We have tabled our amendments in good faith so that the Minister may look at the issue again. Brilliant as our idea may be, he may wish to take it away, fine-tune it, bring it back and claim it as an idea of his own.

Mr. Öpik

This may seem a very trivial detail, but my understanding of the Opposition amendments is that they remove the Partnership Council entirely.

Mr. Evans

We are saying that, given the current drafting of the Bill, it would be better, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, if the body did not meet at all. We have tabled the amendments so that the Minister can consider something that will be constructive for local authority representatives, and so that a meaningful body can be established which represents people throughout Wales. If we are to give birth to the organisation, let us ensure that it is something of which the parents will be proud. Let us take the opportunity.

A cynical view might be that, given the Bill, the assembly might not be seen by the Partnership Council as a body akin to heaven, which is how it has been described over the past few days and was described during the referendum campaign. We were led to believe that once the assembly was set up, the sun would always shine in Wales and there would be very few problems. Since the Partnership Council has been given the opportunity to advise the assembly and local government, as an offspring, it may at times be critical. Stipulating that it meets only once a year does not give it much authority.

Mr. Llwyd

How many times would it meet?

Mr. Evans

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If he waits just one moment, I shall refer to that point in my speech.

I ask the Minister to look again at the matter and give the body a raison d'être. The new Partnership Council should contain a broad spectrum of local interests. The Secretary of State seems to be reacting to the phrase "raison d'être". It is French. I am talking about giving the assembly a real reason for existing. We have heard much about bilingual translation—I can do it myself.

The Partnership Council should meet regularly. If it is to have a real opportunity to take on board the views of the local authorities—including the national parks, the police, the fire brigade and any other body that is deemed important enough under subsection (7)—it should meet at least once a month. It is especially important to Members of the Assembly who do not have local authority experience that there should be a fair exchange of views, particularly in the early years of the assembly.

Ms Julie Morgan

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if the Partnership Council met once a month, it would meet more often than the full councils of some of the local authorities involved?

Mr. Evans

Not all local authorities have the same cycle.

I suggested that the Partnership Council meet once a month, but there may be periods, such as in the summer or over Christmas, when it does not meet, so there might be as few as eight or 10 meetings a year. It is important that it meet more regularly than the rather fleeting suggestion in the Bill of at least once a year.

Mr. Swayne

Does my hon. Friend accept that the council's role is to establish and promote the relationship between the assembly and local government? That is a critical function; the council is not merely a liaison committee that may or may not meet once a month.

Mr. Evans

I find the attitude of Labour Members puzzling. All we have heard in Committee is the importance of the assembly to democracy. The White Paper, which was so influential during the referendum campaign, said that close links would be established between the assembly and local authorities, yet the Bill makes only fleeting reference to the Partnership Council and says that it should meet once a year.

Many Labour Members have experience of local authorities, so I would expect them to want to ensure that the Partnership Council meets regularly to discuss common problems, so that there can be a better understanding of what the assembly and representatives of local authorities—in the wider context laid out in the Bill—want.

If one of the objectives of creating this new tier of government is to bring democracy closer to the people, let us do just that and stop the window-dressing nonsense, which is nothing more than a sop to the Welsh people and an insult to local democracy.

Ms Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

I oppose the amendment and amendment No. 470. Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken this evening, I shall be brief.

The amendment goes even further than amendment No. 469, in that it denies the very possibility of an equal partnership between the assembly and local government. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to democracy, which is fundamental to the Bill, but the amendment runs totally counter to it.

Mr. Hayes

The nature of partnership surely requires some definition of the expectations of the partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out that it will be difficult to form a useful partnership when the size, nature and frequency of meetings of the body are ill defined.

Ms Lawrence

Partnership is a coming together of equal partners, but amendment No. 355 would deny the possibility of bringing the partners together. Amendment No. 470 would extend membership and would make the Partnership Council unmanageable, thereby threatening its democratic role.

I should like the Minister to address questions about national park representation, especially on planning matters, funding and environmental issues. Pembrokeshire has the highest density of population in a national park area, and specific concerns. Amendments Nos. 355 and 470 would affect the partnership of equals and the size of the body, and should therefore be rejected.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

At first sight, the Partnership Council appears to be a harmless proposal, but it is a talking shop for Members of the Assembly and local councillors. One might ask where the harm is in that. Well, after all the build-up in the White Paper, we might have hoped for more. The proposal is symptomatic of a gaping hole at the heart of the Bill and the proposals for a so-called National Assembly for Wales. We have heard so much recently about a constitutional revolution in our country, after various charter movements. That is not true for Wales, because the Bill is largely an administrative device: the proposal for a Partnership Council reveals that.

Neither the Bill nor the Partnership Council will make any difference to the lives of the people in Wales. The Partnership Council proposal shows the true interests of those who are framing the legislation and those who will take part in the assembly. They love creating bureaucratic, interlocking mechanisms between local authorities, officers and councils. At best, those mechanisms are forums; at worst, they are more sinister, as we have seen in other parts of the country.

As a glorified county council, the national assembly is perfect for such people. When politicians are desperate to create something but have no inspiration, they create a Partnership Council. Just as Maastricht created a forum of the regions—ftIoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"1 That is a pointless talking shop, and the Partnership Council will be another.

Clause 110(4)(a) provides that the Partnership Council would give advice to the Assembly". Why do we need yet another council to give advice to yet another assembly? How often will the council meet? The council will also make representations to the Assembly". Why cannot councillors make representations directly to the assembly? That has been done adequately in England, Wales and Scotland for many years. Why will Members of the Assembly be elected if not to make representations directly to local authorities and the general public?

Mr. Öpik

Since the hon. Gentleman evidently disagrees with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that the proposals could be a useful part of the Bill with a few small changes—

Mr. Evans

A few major changes.

Mr. Öpik

I am sorry. What advice would the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) give his colleague about amending the Conservatives' position?

Mr. Leigh

The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House if he thinks that I always agree with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I do occasionally have an independent point of view.

Mr. Hayes

My hon. Friend's point requires amplification. He is actually saying that local authorities that are represented on the Partnership Council may have access to the assembly to give advice or to offer comment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, local authorities and the parts of Wales that are not represented will not have the ability to give that sort of advice. That is the inequality that the Partnership Council engenders.

9.45 pm
Mr. Leigh

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), with whom I normally agree on everything. The trouble with bureaucratic mechanisms is that either one makes the thing so loose as to be meaningless in an attempt to include everybody, or one starts to exclude people.

Clause 110(4)(c) states that the council can "give advice" to local authorities. Why should local authorities want to be lectured by yet another council? Are they incapable of running their own affairs?

Of course, "partners" is a politically correct word. We no longer have spouses, husbands or wives with lifetime commitments—we have partners and sometimes rather odd ones. We have European partners and now we are to have a Partnership Council in Wales. Perhaps we should have Partnership Councils in England—but, on second thoughts, no thank you.

At first, the whole concept of the Partnership Council seems entirely harmless, but it is bogus and symptomatic of the real problems within the Bill. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Partnership Council actually means something—that it is a serious attempt to create powerful regional bulldozers in an unstoppable drive to establish real local and regional power. Let us assume that that is the case. We know it is not, because it is a sham, but if it was the case, it would be a serious step down the road to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Partnership Council is, at best, a sham, a talking shop and a waste of time. The clause has been badly drafted, and the Committee should reject it.

Mr. Livsey

We believe that it is absolutely right to have a Partnership Council. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), in his own endearing and unique way, appears to be not only a Unionist, but an empire builder. The clause states that assembly must sustain and promote local Government in Wales which is very important.

I, like the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), am concerned about representation of the national parks, and I hope that, because of national parks' functions in planning and other matters, they will be drawn into the Partnership Council. The other bodies listed—police and fire authorities—are also important. Amendment No. 470, which specifies that there should be one representative from each county, is extremely important and we would wish to support that amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths

The debate has been important, if only because it shows that the Conservative party is totally divided on this point—in fact, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) appears to be totally divided within himself. At first, I thought his speech was constructed in a dream, but I then realised that it must have been a nightmare. He started by claiming that his concern in tabling an amendment to destroy the Partnership Council was to promote the interests of local government. Before he put his contribution together—if that is what actually happened—did he actually speak to any local government leader or councillor in Wales?

Mr. Evans

I was one.

Mr. Griffiths

Did the hon. Gentleman speak to any present members of local authorities in Wales? I wonder whether he spoke to any of them, because they have backed the proposal. They are extremely happy about the establishment of the Partnership Council, which they want.

Mr. Evans

It is a sop.

Mr. Griffiths

The purpose of the clause is to establish the Partnership Council which, in conjunction with the assembly and local government, will have the duty to sustain and promote local government in Wales. If that is a sop, it is a funny sort of one. The very idea that the hon. Gentleman could think that explains the tone of his speech. If he was so concerned about creating an alternative to that Partnership Council, why on earth did he not table any amendments to that effect? All we heard from him was a rant about how the Partnership Council was not strong enough, and did not provide a large enough role for local government, but that it should meet at least eight times a year. That is his opinion, yet he tabled no amendments to that effect. He missed out on a glorious opportunity to do so.

Mr. Evans

The real nightmare is listening to the Minister's response to any of our constructive suggestions. We know that Ministers could consider our amendments, turn them around, slightly tweak them and then suggest that they were their own. If the Minister wants to establish a Partnership Council that is responsive to the needs of local authorities throughout all parts of Wales, he should look carefully at our suggestions and give that council a true purpose. It should not just be a sop to meet the aims contained in the White Paper, which are sadly missing from the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths

The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks tonight were destructive. He did not offer one positive proposal apart from suggesting that the Partnership Council should meet eight times a year, even though he was proposing its destruction—that is the main thrust of his amendments.

The proposed Partnership Council has been widely welcomed by all the Welsh local authorities. Which authority representatives to whom the hon. Gentleman spoke provided any evidence for his rant? The answer is none of them.

The establishment of the Partnership Council is a positive step towards restoring the trust between central and local Government, which was sadly destroyed by the Conservative Government—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was a member of it. It was lost because of their actions. Since the election, we have already developed a new, strong working relationship with the Welsh Local Government Association. All the Welsh local authorities, apart from two, are also involved with the Central Local Partnership Wales Forum, whatever their political complexion. Of course none of those authorities is Tory, because even if we put all the Tories on one council, they would still not make a majority.

Mr. Llwyd

On that happy note, may I ask the Minister whether he has any idea how many people from the unitary authorities will be invited to take part in the process? Can he give us any idea of the number of times a year when the Partnership Council will sit?

Mr. Griffiths

We would want all of Wales to be represented. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about proper regional representation and we would anticipate relevant proposals from the Welsh Local Government Association to achieve that aim. It is obvious that not just local authorities, but the fire service, the police authorities, the national parks and the Welsh community councils should be represented on that council. County and borough councils will also be represented. We will discuss the relevant numbers with representatives of Welsh local government to ensure that they are happy with their representation.

Mr. Hayes

Those are the points that have been brought out by Conservative Members during the debate. Will the Minister now confirm in slightly more specific terms—or at least speculate with some authority on—the size of the council, the frequency of its meetings and the nature of the relationship between the council and the assembly, which is not defined in the Bill? It is no use the hon. Gentleman drooling about the enthusiasm of Welsh local authorities to be involved in the council if he has not given those details even to us, let alone to Welsh local authorities.

Mr. Griffiths

To which local authorities in Wales has the hon. Gentleman spoken about this proposal? I have already emphasised that they are all totally behind it. [Interruption.] As there are only 22 of them, it would not be too difficult. The hon. Gentleman has not spoken to one.

We have provided a minimum from which Welsh local government, other partners and the assembly can build up. We have said that the council should meet at least once a year, but if it wants to meet twice—or 10 times—that will be up to it. If it decides that adequate representation for the Welsh counties and county boroughs would be about eight, drawn from all parts of Wales, we can build on that. However, it will be a debate with them, to ensure that they feel that they are properly represented. That is the commitment that I make.

Amendment No. 358 was tabled to try to destroy the possibility of anyone receiving any payment for participating in the council—another wrecking amendment. We say, let us go ahead with the Partnership Council, because we know that that is what Welsh local government wants. We hope that amendment No. 471, which says that the council should meet a minimum of three times a year, and amendment No. 470, which says that there should be at least one member from each local authority, will be withdrawn, because we are confident that, on both subjects, we can get the agreement of local government as to what is appropriate.

During the debate, we had a beacon of common sense and thoughtfulness in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). It was refreshing in the light of the rant that we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), which was directly contradictory to the views being expressed by Conservative Front-Bench Members, who, although they were seeking to destroy the Partnership Council, tried to claim that they were building a new relationship but had no idea what they would want except that the Partnership Council should meet at least eight times a year and be represented regionally.

Our Government amendments are essentially technical in nature. In amendments Nos. 376 to 386, we use the word "authorities" to tie in with the use of local authorities elsewhere. We want to ensure that the assembly can use common sense in seeking nomination so that if, for example, a local government vacancy were created, someone from local government would fill that vacancy, making a trawl throughout Wales unnecessary.

We hope that all hon. Members will feel, having inspected these amendments closely, that they add clarity to the Bill, to ensure that the Partnership Council works properly. Given that it would appear that hon. Members are happy with the proposal that these amendments technically improve the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 355 and not press the other amendments to a vote, because they are simply wrecking amendments and not designed to promote and strengthen the role of local government with the new National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Evans

I listened carefully to the Minister. I am not sure whether he was trying to win me over when he referred to my excellent speech as a rant. The fact that he may not agree with what I say—and because I say what I say and say it passionately—does not make it a rant.

We were suggesting a real partnership between local authorities and the assembly Members in Wales to ensure that the body would mean something. What the Government have suggested is a sop. They put the measures in the White Paper to try to win the support of the people in Wales, and that has not worked. We are not persuaded by what the Minister said, and we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 331.

Division No. 147] [9.59 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Amess, David Browning, Mrs Angela
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Arbuthnot, James Burns, Simon
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Butterfill, John
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Cash, William
Baldry, Tony Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul Chope, Christopher
Blunt, Crispin Clappison, James
Body, Sir Richard Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Boswell, Tim Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Brady, Graham Collins, Tim
Brazier, Julian Colvin, Michael
Cran, James Mates, Michael
Curry, Rt Hon David Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Day, Stephen Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen May, Mrs Theresa
Duncan, Alan Moss, Malcolm
Evans, Nigel Nicholls, Patrick
Faber, David Norman, Archie
Fabricant, Michael Ottaway, Richard
Fallon, Michael Paice, James
Flight, Howard Paterson, Owen
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam Prior, David
Fraser, Christopher Redwood, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward Robathan, Andrew
Gibb, Nick Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gill, Christopher Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gray, James Ruffley, David
Green, Damian St Aubyn, Nick
Greenway, John Sayeed, Jonathan
Grieve, Dominic Shepherd, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Hague, Rt Hon William Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Spring, Richard
Hammond, Philip Steen, Anthony
Hayes, John Swayne, Desmond
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Syms, Robert
Horam, John Tapsell, Sir Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hunter, Andrew Townend, John
Jenkin, Bernard Tredinnick, David
Key, Robert Trend, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Tyrie, Andrew
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Viggers, Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Walter, Robert
Lansley, Andrew Waterson, Nigel
Leigh, Edward Wells, Bowen
Letwin, Oliver Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Lidington, David Willetts, David
Loughton, Tim Woodward, Shaun
Luff, Peter Yeo, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Young, Rt Hon Sir George
MacKay, Andrew
McLoughlin, Patrick Tellers for the Ayes:
Madel, Sir David Mr. Oliver Heald and
Maples, John Mr. John Whittingdale.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ainger, Nick Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Bradshaw, Ben
Alexander, Douglas Brinton, Mrs Helen
Allan, Richard Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Allen, Graham Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Browne, Desmond
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Burden, Richard
Ashton, Joe Burgon, Colin
Atherton, Ms Candy Burnett, John
Atkins, Charlotte Burstow, Paul
Austin, John Butler, Mrs Christine
Ballard, Mrs Jackie Byers, Stephen
Banks, Tony Caborn, Richard
Barnes, Harry Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bayley, Hugh Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Beard, Nigel Cann, Jamie
Begg, Miss Anne Caplin, Ivor
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Caton, Martin
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Cawsey, Ian
Bennett, Andrew F Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Berry, Roger Chaytor, David
Betts, Clive Chidgey, David
Blackman, Liz Clapham, Michael
Blizzard, Bob Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Boateng, Paul
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Healey, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann Hepburn, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann Heppell, John
Cohen, Harry Hesford, Stephen
Coleman, Iain Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Connarty, Michael Hill, Keith
Cooper, Yvette Hinchliffe, David
Corbett, Robin Hoey, Kate
Corston, Ms Jean Home Robertson, John
Cotter, Brian Hoon, Geoffrey
Cranston, Ross Hope, Phil
Crausby, David Hopkins, Kelvin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cummings, John Howells, Dr Kim
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Hoyle, Lindsay
Dafis, Cynog Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Darvill, Keith Humble, Mrs Joan
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Hurst, Alan
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Hutton, John
Davidson, Ian Iddon, Dr Brian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Ingram, Adam
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly) Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dawson, Hilton Jenkins, Brian
Dean, Mrs Janet Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Denham, John
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Dismore, Andrew Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dobbin, Jim Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Donohoe, Brian H
Doran, Frank Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dowd, Jim Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Drew, David Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Drown, Ms Julia Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Jowell, Ms Tessa
Edwards, Huw Keeble, Ms Sally
Ellman, Mrs Louise Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ennis, Jeff Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Etherington, Bill Kemp, Fraser
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Fatchett, Derek Kidney, David
Feam, Ronnie Kilfoyle, Peter
Field, Rt Hon Frank King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Fisher, Mark King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fitzpatrick, Jim Kingham, Ms Tess
Fitzsimons, Lorna Kumar, Dr Ashok
Flint, Caroline Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Flynn, Paul Laxton, Bob
Follett, Barbara Lepper, David
Foster, Don (Bath) Levitt, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Foulkes, George Linton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria Livingstone, Ken
Galbraith, Sam Livsey, Richard
Gapes, Mike Llwyd, Elfyn
Gardiner, Barry Lock, David
George, Andrew (St Ives) McAllion, John
George, Bruce (Walsall S) McAvoy, Thomas
Gerrard, Neil McCabe, Steve
Gilroy, Mrs Linda McCafferty, Ms Chris
Godman, Norman A McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Godsiff, Roger Macdonald, Calum
Goggins, Paul McDonnell, John
Gorrie, Donald McGuire, Mrs Anne
Grant, Bernie McIsaac, Shona
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McLeish, Henry
Grogan, John McNulty, Tony
Hain, Peter MacShane, Denis
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Mactaggart, Fiona
Hanson, David Mahon, Mrs Alice
Harris, Dr Evan Mallaber, Judy
Marek, Dr John Sedgemore, Brian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Shaw, Jonathan
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Sheerman, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Shipley, Ms Debra
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Martlew, Eric Singh, Marsha
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Skinner, Dennis
Meale, Alan Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Michael, Alun Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Milburn, Alan Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Moore, Michael Southworth, Ms Helen
Moran, Ms Margaret Spellar, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) Squire, Ms Rachel
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Steinberg, Gerry
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) Stevenson, George
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mountford, Kali Stinchcombe, Paul
Mudie, George Stoate, Dr Howard
Mullin, Chris Stott, Roger
Naysmith, Dr Doug Stringer, Graham
Norris, Dan Stuart, Ms Gisela
Oaten, Mark Stunell, Andrew
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Hara, Eddie
Olner, Bill Taylor, David (NW Leics)
O'Neill, Martin Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Öpik, Lembit Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Organ, Mrs Diana Timms, Stephen
Palmer, Dr Nick Tipping, Paddy
Pearson, Ian Todd, Mark
Pickthall, Colin Touhing, Don
Pike, Peter L Trickett, Jon
Plaskitt, James Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pollard, Kerry Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Pond, Chris Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Pope, Greg Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pound, Stephen Tyler, Paul
Powell, Sir Raymond Vaz, Keith
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Ward, Ms Claire
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Wareing, Robert N
Primarolo, Dawn Watts, David
Prosser, Gwyn Webb, Steve
Purchase, Ken White, Brian
Rammell, Bill Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Raynsford, Nick Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N) Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Rendel, David Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S) Willis, Phil
Wills, Michael
Roche, Mrs Barbara Wilson, Brian
Rooney, Terry Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Roy, Frank Wise, Audrey
Ruddock, Ms Joan Wood, Mike
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Ryan, Ms Joan Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Salter, Martin
Sanders, Adrian Tellers for the Noes:
Savidge, Malcolm Mr. John McFall and
Sawford, Phil Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [2 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment made: No. 376, in page 53, line 39, leave out 'bodies' and insert 'authorities'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to