Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The noble Lord rightly points out that it is our intention to replace the LSC. Under our proposals, responsibility for 16 to 19 funding will transfer to local authorities, supported by a new Young People’s Learning Agency, and for adults we propose to create a new Skills Funding Agency. These changes are subject to legislation, which we propose to bring forward through the forthcoming Children, Skills and Learning Bill. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree, however, that it would not be appropriate to act as though these changes have already occurred. I can reassure them, however, that we intend at the appropriate time to make the necessary amendments to the lists of partner authorities for economic assessments and multi-area agreements with duties to ensure that they remain up to date and relevant. We recognise that further education institutions have a vital role to play in providing the education and skills training needed within local communities. I hope that that answers the noble Lord. Amendment 164A would add police authorities, crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local probation boards and youth offending teams to the list, while Amendment 164B would add the Health and Safety Executive to the list. We are not disputing that these bodies would have an interest in any local economic assessment. But, as I said earlier, we do not believe that there should be a duty on local authorities to consult all partners. Local authorities should be given the scope to decide for themselves which other bodies they should consult in preparing their assessments beyond the core list in Clause 64. We should give local authorities some local flexibility to decide which bodies to consult, depending on local circumstances. Amendment 162AA would require principal local authorities to consult parish councils in carrying out their local economic assessments. We accept that parish councils have an important role to play in supporting their local communities and are able to provide a particularly local perspective. We certainly believe that there is value in principal local authorities consulting parishes, and this a point we stress in our policy paper. Indeed, our statutory guidance, Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities, suggests that local authorities should consider consulting parish councils in preparing their sustainable community strategy and LAA. However, given the large number of parishes—about 8,500 across England—we do not believe there should be a duty to consult them. We believe that this would place an unnecessary burden on local authorities and potentially on parish councils. Amendment 165ZB would require partner authorities to provide a principal local authority all requested information and to co-operate fully with the principal local authority. We have tried to avoid making the arrangements too burdensome for both partner authorities and local authorities. It is true to say that the same partners have a duty to co-operate in determining LAA targets. However, we should draw a distinction between what is required from partner authorities in relation to LAAs and what is required of them in relation to economic assessments. With LAAs, partners need to make hard decisions affecting the social, environmental and economic well-being of an area, and this may have implications for funding programmes. The same does not apply to local economic assessments. The economic assessment is not an end in itself, but part of a continuous process of planned engagement in shaping the future of a place. Engagement with partner authorities in relation to economic assessments should build on existing dialogues that I set out earlier. In that context, we do not believe that a duty to co-operate on economic assessments is necessary. We are also concerned that an open-ended requirement for partner authorities to provide all requested information to principal authorities would place an unnecessary burden on partner authorities, particularly those whose activities are not confined to one principal authority’s area. There may also be issues of confidentiality or privacy that should be taken account of, and a duty to share all requested information may compromise those. A partner authority should be allowed to determine which data it should provide rather than face a requirement to share all data. Finally, Amendment 165ZA would remove the Secretary of State’s power to remove a body from the list of partner authorities. We believe it is important to retain this provision in case the functions of a body change or it is abolished. I should also stress that such a revision would not be used lightly and is subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that these assurances address Members’ concerns and that they will understand why we are rejecting these amendments. I also ask that Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill.