Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Clause 64 sets out a list of partner authorities in respect of the local authority economic assessment duty. Clause 63 requires principal local authorities to consult those partner authorities listed in Clause 64 and other such persons, if any, they consider appropriate in carrying out local economic assessments. Members of the Committee have notified us of their intention to oppose Clause 64 standing part of the Bill. Amendment 162A would take away the requirement for principal local authorities to consult partner authorities listed in Clause 64. Amendment 162ZA is in a similar vein. We have included Clause 64 in the Bill as there are partners that local authorities should be required to consult in carrying out their assessments. The listed authorities are already working closely with local authorities and co-operating with them in agreeing targets aimed at improving local economic outcomes. It is important that responsible local authorities engage with these partners in identifying the economic conditions of the area. The list of partner authorities broadly follows the list of partner authorities set out in Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 for the purpose of agreeing local area agreements and which responsible authorities must consult when developing their sustainable community strategies. We have, however, restricted the list of named partners set out in Clause 64 to those bodies that have a significant economic locus—that is to say, local economic development and regeneration activity is likely to impact on their core business. It is therefore shorter than the list of named partners for LAAs. The likelihood is that local authorities will want to engage most, if not all, of their partners in preparing their economic assessments. However, we do not believe that there should be a statutory duty to consult all of them. This strikes a balance between ensuring that their major economic partners have an opportunity to comment on economic assessments and limiting the burdens placed on local authorities. It also strikes a balance between prescription and local flexibility. We have taken this approach because local economic assessments are expected to form part of the evidence-base for the sustainable community strategy and for LAA negotiations. Any evidence revealed in local economic assessments will have implications for an area’s long-term vision set out in the sustainable community strategy, and its delivery through the targets set out in the LAA, in respect of which partner authorities have a duty to co-operate. In view of this, we believe it is important that these partner authorities should have an opportunity to comment on a local economic assessment. Beyond the list of partners set out in this clause, local authorities are free to choose who they consult. The Bill requires responsible authorities to consult other such persons, if any, whom they consider to be appropriate. If local authorities believe that there is a strong case for consulting other bodies or partnerships, they should do so. However, we believe it is important that local authorities consult the partners listed in Clause 64, as they will have an important role in determining any economic outcome-related targets in local area agreements. Involving these partners at an early stage in identifying the economic strengths and weaknesses of the local economy will help to strengthen the impact and effectiveness of targets that are agreed through local area agreements further down the line. Under Amendment 162AZA, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would like us to go further and apply the duty to consult to all local strategic partnerships. He would have us replace the requirement to consult named partner authorities with a requirement to consult the local strategic partnerships for the area. As we have said before, we do not think that it is appropriate to frame such duties by reference to local strategic partnerships due to their lack of a separate legal identity. This could lead to uncertainty and inconsistency. As I have already said, we, of course, recognise the reality of LSPs, and the central role they play, which is why we have drawn our list of partners from those set out in Part 5 of the 2007 Act. We would expect consultation with partner authorities in relation to local economic assessments to build on existing dialogues established through the LSP framework. But, although most partners are likely to have an interest in any conclusions reached in any economic assessment, we do not believe that there should be a duty to consult all of them. As I said before, we have sought to strike a balance between ensuring that local authorities consult their major economic partners and avoiding any unnecessary burdens on local authorities and between prescription and local flexibility. Amendments 165, 164A, 164B and 162AA propose changes to the list of partner authorities for the local economic assessment duty. We have restricted the partner status to existing LAA partners with a strong economic locus, as I have already said. Our aim has been to keep the list of partner authorities as short as possible in order to reduce the potential burden on local authorities and potential consultees. Amendment 165 would remove the Learning and Skills Council from the list of partners for the local economic assessment duty and replace it with the managing or governing body of a further education institution in the principal local authority’s area. Amendment 198 would have a similar effect in relation to MAAs with duties. The LSC is already a partner in local area agreements and the existing non-statutory multi-area agreements, and is working with local partners across the country to identify the education and skills needs of an area and to ensure that sufficient high-quality opportunities are available to meet those needs. We believe, therefore, that the LSC should remain on the list.