Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may first respond to that point, which I can clarify. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising it and I can see why she has done so. The formulation that no one has a right to be heard comes directly from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and is the standard formulation that people are familiar with. Essentially, its effect is that no one has an absolute right to be heard at an EiP, because it is entirely up to the discretion of the independent panel who it chooses to invite to the EiP. That in itself reflects the present arrangements for the regional spatial strategy. We are just continuing the formula. If one were to use the word ““automatic”” we would raise different issues. We have emphasised throughout that there is a very important role for stakeholders, the responsible regional parties and the panel to listen to concerns and to draw upon expertise. What gives this process greater strength is that by appointing the panel earlier in the process, it will be able to work in parallel with the preparation of the strategy. We have said that the panel should, for example, hold preparatory sessions before the final hearing so that it can hear wider and differing points of view from the public and other stakeholders, which will give people greater access to the panel and to the arguments which will help to diffuse some of the controversies and difficulties which otherwise surface at far too late a stage. If I can be clear, the fact that there is not an absolute right to be heard is not about limiting stakeholder and public involvement at all. In addition, Clause 69 requires regional authorities to publish a statement of community involvement, as the noble Baroness knows. Subsection (7) is about ensuring an approach to independent testing, which is important and credible because it puts the onus on the independent panel to select participants and, therefore, prevents situations in which people who shout loudest may dominate the debate. The problem with the term ““automatic”” is that it is not well understood in a legal context; it may be open to misinterpretation. The more common distinction is that made between absolute and qualified rights, whereby the latter are limited in some way. I hope that that explanation, plus the bit of context that I have given, will satisfy the noble Baroness on the point that she identified. I turn Amendments 176B, 176C, 176E, and the criteria which responsible regional authorities should apply in deciding whether to hold an EiP. Amendments 176B and 176E change subsections (2) and (6), which currently require the regional authorities and Secretary of State to have regard to the extent of the revisions, the level of interest shown in the draft revisions, and other matters which the responsible regional authorities think appropriate. The amendments would remove paragraph (b) and instead require the extent and nature of the consultation on the draft revision to be taken into account. Although I respect the argument, I think that the amendments diminish the provisions for review. They would remove the need to consider the level of interest. The requirement for a responsible regional authority to consider whether to hold an EiP would be replaced by a requirement to consider the extent and nature. Subsections (2)(b) and (6)(b) mean that one of the considerations in deciding whether to hold an EiP in the first place will be the actual, potential level of interest in the process, particularly the level of controversy that may be expected, which may be gauged even at an early stage in the regional strategy process from discussions about the scope of the review and the draft revision. That is a valuable thing to have. The panel itself will be involved at a much earlier stage in observing that. Stakeholder engagement is critical to ensure that the regional strategy does what it is supposed to do in integrating competing demands and commanding support across the region so that the outcomes can be genuinely owned and supported by the widest possible community. That is why we have put community involvement at the heart of the process. The statement of policies on involving the community, which responsible regional authorities will need to prepare under Clause 69, and which is in current legislation, needs to set out how the region proposes to engage with stakeholders, both formally and informally, and Clause 69(3) expects regions to comply with their published statement. I assure the noble Baroness that the extent and nature of public consultation will be a relevant consideration when the panel examines the strategy. We have already said in our policy document that we will clarify further in guidance what we expect to see in the statement of community involvement. On the other two amendments, and the important issues they raise, the proposal for a fallback provision to be introduced in the event of a disagreement between the RDA and leaders’ board on whether or not to arrange for an EiP is addressed though the amendment that the leaders’ board judgment would prevail. I understand concerns in that regard, but as part of the working arrangements for preparing the draft strategy we expect the RDA and the leaders’ board to set out how they will resolve any differences between them, either on the process or content of the strategy. We expect that mechanism to be in place before they start on a revision. They must have their journey mapped before they begin. To allow the view of one party automatically to prevail undermines the notion of trust that we are trying to build and the whole basis of the joint duty on RDAs and leaders to work together. Because we do not live in a perfect world, we have introduced a safeguard if they cannot resolve their differences, but it is only a safeguard. Clause 70(5) enables the Secretary of State to arrange an EiP if there is disagreement or where the responsible regional authorities decide not to arrange for an examination. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State can arrange an EiP, but as it is so fundamental to how the mechanism will work and the transparency and contestability of what is proposed, it is extremely unlikely that that situation would arise. Amendment 180C would make it mandatory instead of discretionary for the Secretary of State to hold an EiP before making changes. That would apply only in the very exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State has resorted to reserve powers under which she takes over responsibility for the regional strategy and removes it from the regional authorities. The noble Baroness's amendment would mean that where the Secretary of State has taken back responsibility for drafting strategy, there should be no discretion whether there should be an EiP; it should be mandatory. I can see her argument, but the decision on whether to hold an EiP must be taken on the basis of common sense: whether it is appropriate and whether it would add value to the process. In other words, it must be based on whether serious issues have been raised. The amendment would require minor, technical and small-scale change to be subject to an EiP. That is not in the public interest. Clause 73(3) already requires the Secretary of State to take account of the extent of any revisions and the level of interest in them, which covers that point. If there are significant changes or controversial issues, an EiP must be held. I hope that I have answered as clearly as possible the issues raised and I hope that the noble Baronesses will be satisfied with my answer.