Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I turn first to the review of the regional strategy. I am pleased to see my noble friend in such good health and good voice, and to see the national parks represented again in the Bill. With regard to the timing of the reviews, Clause 68 requires the regional authorities to keep the strategy under review. The power to do that, which is important, gives them discretion to determine the timing and scope of the review, so I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said. I should point out that under the terms of Clause 5 regional authorities are also required to monitor the strategy annually. The monitoring and the question of whether a review is timely will go together. Monitoring will provide the information that will help them to judge whether a review is needed. Clause 68 essentially provides a default power for the Secretary of State to require a review if, for whatever reason, the regional authorities have not done that and there are apparently good reasons for doing so. That is simply taken from the regional spatial strategy arrangements under the terms of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. I emphasise that it is very much for the regional authorities to decide the timing. Amendments 174 and 175 would remove the power of the regional authorities, and I understand that these are probing amendments. The noble Baroness has explained why she suggested that the frequency of the regional strategy should be at five-yearly intervals, and I understand what she is asking for here. In fact, we agree that reviews of regional strategy are likely to take place approximately every five years; we said so in our regional strategy policy document and intend to restate it in future guidance. However, it is crucial to retain flexibility, which is currently in place for both the regional economic and the regional spatial strategies. None of us would think that the trigger for a review of regional strategy should be an arbitrary date. It has to be based on perception of need and evidence if external circumstances change—for example, if there is a major shift in the economic environment, such as a major expansion of port facilities. We need to keep that flexibility to review as and when circumstances change, because those determine the investment decisions and planning decisions as well. It should primarily be the responsibility of the regional authorities to judge when a review is needed and what the scope of the review should be, based on the evidence available to them. That is why we used the term, "““when it appears to them necessary or expedient to do so””" in relation to the regional authorities. I have said that that is supported by Clause 75 and monitoring the strategy. In worst-case scenarios—I cannot imagine them, but we have to provide in legislation for the worst events—there may be a need for safeguards in the event that regional authorities are unwilling, for whatever reason, to initiate a review of themselves or cannot agree whether to have a review, even though other local, regional or national partners feel it is necessary. Clause 68, as a default power, therefore specifies that the regional authorities must undertake a review if and when required by the Secretary of State to do so. We debated the powers of the Secretary of State in a previous debate, so I will not reiterate them; I shall just say that this is a safeguard as a last resort. I turn to Amendment 174A. I shall come back to the noble Baroness’s other amendment on the other issue of timing. Amendment 174A addresses the role of individual local authorities in these decisions about the timing and scope of reviews of the regional strategy. The amendment would require regional authorities to consult county and unitary councils in the regions, as well as any National Park authorities or the Broads Authority when deciding whether to trigger a review of the strategy. Significantly, district councils in two-tier areas would not be consulted directly, although they would have to be consulted by their county. Clearly we are at one with this argument. Local authorities should be at the centre of decisions about the regional strategy. The noble Baroness anticipated some of those arguments. That is why we listened so closely during the consultation on these proposals and responded by giving the local authority leaders’ board the joint duty, with the RDA, to prepare the draft regional strategy and prepare an implementation plan. As a result, county and unitary councils, as well as any National Park authorities or the Broads Authority, will already be directly involved in decisions about the timing and scope of reviews through their participation in the local authority leaders’ board. Concern has been expressed by the Local Government Association that, because we are not replicating Section 4(4) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, we are in some ways weakening the role, because there is no strictly equivalent provision in this Bill giving counties a formal role in the regional strategy process. I reassure noble Lords and the Local Government Association—and I am very happy to put this in a letter to noble Lords, which can be sent to the LGA—that counties will have a number of clear statutory roles. Although we have not replicated it in exactly the same way, they will in effect be achieved with no loss of opportunity or access to influence. First, local authorities will have a duty to prepare economic assessment of their area; that will be the point at which the information will form and drive the priorities and will form part of the regional strategy evidence base. Secondly, they will be participating authorities, responsible for agreeing the membership and operation of the leaders’ boards; in practice, they are likely to be on the board in most or even all regions. Thirdly, they will be required to be consulted on draft regional strategies; that will be set out in guidance, which will specify that. In that guidance, the counties and all other local authorities would be identified as bodies to be consulted in the regulations that we have promised to provide in relation to Clause 69, to draft regional strategies and to Clause 72(3). The National Park authorities are participating authorities, responsible for drawing up the scheme for the leaders’ board. We said in the policy document that they can but do not have to be on the board, but they must be part of the board’s membership and its operation and they would be consulted on the draft strategy and Clause 72(3), to be provided in regulations. Again, I am happy to write to the National Parks Authority, setting that out and ensuring that everyone is clear about that, because it is such a critical partner in this. I hope that that satisfies concerns on that issue. I turn to the other set of issues, which were raised by the regional authorities’ review of their statements of policy on community involvement. That is the point raised in Amendment 176. The noble Baroness rightly probed why we have used the expression ““from time to time””, which seems more lyrical than legislative when put like that. Essentially there is little difference between that and the formulation that she offers; both will have the same effect in allowing the regional authorities to determine the timing of revisions to their policies on community involvement in the regional strategy process. However, ““from time to time”” implies that revisions will take place, whereas ““when they see fit”” may result in no revision if the bodies do not see fit. We need to keep that protection and flexibility. I hope with those explanations that noble Lords will be satisfied. As I have said, I can certainly put what I have said in writing for the interested parties.