Group 9 is the next group of amendments. The amendments relate to corporate joint committees when no request has been made. Amendment 164 is the lead amendment, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move that amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 164 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. We wanted to table amendments to remove the power of the Minister to force local authorities into corporate joint committees. Some of those amendments have been tabled by Mark Isherwood, so ours are consequential amendments to those, but tabled with that same policy intention and, of course, drafted by the legal services here. This reflects our position as a party that local authorities should not be forced into CJCs. We believe that such a power would go too far in giving ministerial power to rewrite the regional footprint of government in Wales without the level of scrutiny that we would like to see. At Stage 2, the Minister said that this is a very limited power restricted to areas where regional working arrangements already exist in legislation or in practice. However, whilst we accept that clarification, we do believe that it should be possible for a local authority to remove itself from these arrangements without being forced into them. And therefore, we will be supporting our and Mark Isherwood's amendments in this section. Diolch.

Amendments 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133 and 135 remove provisions that allow Welsh Ministers to mandate the creation of corporate joint committees where no request has been made, as we just heard from our Plaid Cymru colleague.

During Stage 1 proceedings, concerns were raised by a number of stakeholders regarding this issue. For example, the Welsh Local Government Association resolved to note that it has fundamental concerns over the principle of mandation, which is seen as undermining local democracy. Furthermore, the society of local authority chief officers suggested that the mandating of corporate joint committees would be 'counterproductive', and questioned whether a mandated footprint was required to ensure efficiencies.

During Stage 2, the Minister said that corporate joint committees are very much a vehicle for local government and that it is for local government to decide how they manage and organise their regional arrangements and collaborations. However, the ability for Welsh Ministers to mandate the creation of corporate joint committees undermines this argument, and the concerns of stakeholders that have been raised throughout the scrutiny of the Bill have not been addressed. Given their role in terms of regional infrastructure and economic development, the ability to allow Welsh Ministers to mandate the creation of corporate joint committees also undermines the internal devolution and local partnership working established in areas by bodies such as the North Wales Economic Ambition Board—as you know, a coalition involving both Governments, all six north Wales councils, business and academia.

Our amendments therefore remove provisions that allow Welsh Ministers to mandate the creation of corporate joint committees where no request has been made. Diolch.

I'm afraid I reject all the amendments in this group—that is, amendments 120 to 131, 133, 135, 164, 167, 173 and 175. I do not intend to speak to each amendment in turn, but to address the principle that I consider underpins these amendments as a whole, that principle being the powers of Welsh Ministers to establish corporate joint committees where no request has been made by local government.

Members will have heard me talking about the establishment of corporate joint committees on a number of occasions and this model is one that I have been working with local government to develop since I took up this office. I do not agree with the proposal that sections 73 and 74 be removed; I see this as a key element of these provisions. My ambition in creating corporate joint committees was not only to provide an enhanced vehicle for local government collaboration, with the benefits of being able to employ staff and hold budgets, but also to enable the use of a single consistent vehicle for this collaboration, rather than separate arrangements for different functions. I believe that this ambition is shared by local government.

My aim is to rationalise provision that already existed in legislation in relation to single-purpose collaborations, such as joint transport authorities and strategic planning panels, into a single regional arrangement that can look at these connected functions holistically. In order to achieve this, it is important that Welsh Ministers have the ability to create corporate joint committees to replace these existing legislative structures. I have been clear that this is a very limited power, restricted to areas where regional working arrangements already exist in legislation or in practice. These are areas where there is consensus that working at this scale makes sense, aligning economic development, transport and land use planning approaches to develop successful regional economies and encourage local growth. On this basis, I therefore strongly urge Members reject all amendments in this group. Diolch.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Earlier in the debate and at Stage 2, the Minister has made points about unintended consequences that there may be to some amendments, and I had accepted that point. I do accept the Minister's point here that the intention of this limited power to compel local authorities may well be meant to be used in a very limited sense. But, again, I would make the same point to the Minister about unintended consequences that may come about because of this. And because of the draconian and very dramatic and serious implications that this could have, we will be pushing our own amendments to a vote and we will be supporting those tabled in the name of Mark Isherwood, as I said earlier. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 164 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 164. In favour 18, six abstentions, 26 against.

Amendment 164: For: 18, Against: 26, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been rejected