Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I know how strongly the noble Baroness feels about these amendments, and based on her experience, I understand more. Amendment 172AB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would insert: "““Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 … applies to meetings of the Leaders’ Boards as if it were a committee of a local authority””." That would mean that all such meetings must be open to the public. Amendment 173B is further reaching in its effect in two important respects. It refers to all the provisions of Part VA of the 1972 Act rather than to Section 100. As a consequence not only all meetings would need to be public but all papers, reports and minutes, as well as details relating to individual members of the board. It applies not only to leaders’ boards but to RDAs and responsible regional authorities. It is important to recognise that we are not trying to create additional bureaucracy with leaders’ boards. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has been keen to ensure that we know his feelings on that. It is about representing local authorities working with RDAs, and we want those strategies to be developed in a way that is open, inclusive and appropriate. That is why we require the responsible regional authorities: to publish a statement of their policies for the involvement of all those who have an interest in the regional strategy; to comply with it; and to have an examination to test it publicly and rigorously. Those provisions have been built into the process for producing the regional strategy, which are as inclusive as for the RSS but which go further than for regional economic strategies and line up with the local development framework. Because this is a new process, the leaders’ boards will work in different ways. They will be tasked specifically with hard work, much of which will be about analysis and negotiation with the RDAs on priorities. This is a very different situation and it would not be appropriate to apply the provisions of the 1972 Act to the leaders’ boards or the RDAs. Leaders’ boards will be established through an open process. A scheme will be made to establish them and they will be consulted on. While we do not intend to prescribe how that consultation will be done, the Secretary of State will consider whether it has been consistent with the Cabinet Office code. I expect them to conduct their business openly. Regional assemblies generally meet in public. They include information of past and future meetings and papers and minutes on their websites. Leaders’ boards will also act transparently. The 4NW—the famous one—is already following similar procedures for public access to information to the former north-west regional assembly. The nature and detail of each of the boards’ constitution and governance will be for the participating local authorities to decide. That may vary between regions. Therefore, we do not feel that it would be right to prescribe detailed arrangements. Nevertheless, local authorities and their leaders will be subject to Part VA of the 1972 Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The activities of the leaders’ boards and members of the participating authorities will be subject to the relevant provisions. RDAs are committed to openness and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They follow the model publication scheme produced for the information commissioner. Yorkshire Forward, for example, publishes the agenda for each board meeting as well as board minutes on its website. RDAs are not authorities for the purpose of the Local Government Act. As the noble Baroness knows, Part VA would not be appropriate. In summary, my argument is that they are different animals and will work in different ways. While I accept the noble Baroness’s concern, rather than imposing a detailed and possibly inappropriate process on all the responsibilities, we want to ensure that the process is inclusive and transparent. We have done that in the ways I have suggested. That approach has worked well in the past in involving communities. If we went further, I believe that we would end up with more bureaucracy. We would have inflexibility and not necessarily greater transparency.