Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I set out in some detail and at some length on the previous group of amendments how we see EPBs working and how they will be driven and designed by the authorities involved. If the authorities decide to proceed to a scheme, it will set out all the details of how the EPB will operate. We would certainly expect the authorities who are leading the preparation of a scheme to consult widely and to undertake detailed negotiations with all the authorities covered by the scheme to ensure that they are content. I genuinely believe that some of the worst case scenarios that the Committee has just addressed will not arise. In practice, the scheme will be prepared by an existing sub-regional group made up of representatives of the relevant authorities. That process should lead to all the authorities being content and accommodated in the final scheme. However, Clause 93 additionally provides that to be included in a final published scheme an authority must either have participated in preparing the scheme or have given its explicit consent to be included. The only exception is that where the whole of a county’s area is to be included in the scheme, where only the county has to give its consent. That exception flows from similar legislation in the Local Transport Act for ITAs. I take the argument, forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is often at district level that economic issues bite and are addressed. It would obviously be right, proper and preferable for district councils to play a full role in any sub-regional working. We do not intend that any council should be forced into an EPB. EPBs are about consent and the cementing of partnerships working at the sub-regional level. They are unlikely to be effective if some authorities are not fully behind the arrangements. As I said, we therefore want district councils to play a full role in any sub-regional working that takes place between authorities. We expect that any districts that do not wish to participate in an EPB would not be included in its area. That would mean that only part of a county would be covered by the EPB. Where the participation of the district is vital in securing an effective EPB, the negotiations will be very pragmatic and continue until an arrangement can be found that is acceptable to all parties. Amendments 194F and 194AF would remove the possibility of a county deciding, without the consent of each of its districts, to enter an EPB. I have listened and heard very clearly the degree of concern on this point but, for the reasons I have given, this is something of a false issue. I believe that the exception in Clause 93(6) would rarely, if ever, be used. I cannot promise that we will accommodate those concerns but I am prepared to give more consideration to the role of districts in agreeing a scheme that covers their area even if the whole of the county is included. Amendments 187D and 187F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would require any district council whose area was covered by an EPB to have a representative on the membership. I agree that that should be possible but I am not convinced that it should be mandatory as it might lead to the EPB being too large to be effective. However, there is nothing to stop all districts being represented if that is what the authorities decide between them. Membership is a matter for the EPB concerned. Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments that would increase and strengthen the point at which authorities must give their consent to an EPB or a combined authority. As I have set out, the key decision point is when the scheme is completed and authorities which have not been involved in its preparation give their consent to be included. Amendments 183C and 194R, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require that every local authority be involved in preparing the scheme for an EPB or combined authority and they must give their consent to it. My concern here is that it may be unduly onerous to insist that every authority is involved in preparing the scheme. It also does not seem necessary to insist that local authorities additionally give their consent if they have been involved in preparing, consulting on and drawing up the proposal, because by ““participation”” we mean not just minimal participation but full and meaningful involvement in preparing the scheme. We expect the provision to be interpreted in that way, and we will make that clear in guidance. Amendments 188B, 194D, 194E, 194J, 194N, 194V, 194AD, 194AE, 194AJ and 194AN address variations of the same theme. They seek to provide further opportunities for local authorities to give their consent to the arrangements for an EPB or combined authority relating to their area—for example, providing that they must give their consent for their area to be included in the review, to the functions that will be given to the EPB and to the order that initially creates the new body. Our view, in relation to these amendments, is that by agreeing to the scheme for the EPB the authorities will be agreeing to all the arrangements that go with it—that is, the functions and constitutional arrangements. Being included in the review area, to pick up on the point made by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not affect the authority unless it later agrees to be part of the scheme, so it does not seem necessary to also insist that the authorities agree to their area being included in the review. Separate agreement to the Secretary of State’s order is also unnecessary; it will be presumed, as the order will be designed to implement the scheme. Amendments 194G and 194AG would remove the requirement in Clause 94 for the Secretary of State to have regard to the scheme prepared by the local authorities. We have had a debate around the role of the Secretary of State and of the order, and I addressed these issues earlier on. I hope that in the interests of making progress the Committee will accept what I said earlier on that point. Amendment 183E to Clause 83 would add requirements on the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and to determine whether an EPB would be likely to deliver improvements to the economy. These additions are not required as they would duplicate similar requirements that have already been placed on the Secretary of State in Clause 94. Due to Clause 94, it will not be possible for the Secretary of State to establish an EPB without considering that it is likely to improve the economy in the area or without consulting the local authorities involved. Amendment 183E would also require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding to make an order about any particular EPB. A similar point is made by Amendments 194H and 194AH for combined authorities. We will expect the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for her decision. In practice, that decision will surely not come as a surprise to the authorities because the process of developing an EPB will involve ongoing dialogue between the authorities involved and all the partners, which will include central government; so there is little chance of a scheme being submitted that is likely to be rejected. It is difficult to provide for ongoing discussion in legislation, but we will attempt to set out our expectations about that process more clearly when publishing guidance for local authorities on the process for establishing an EPB. I am conscious that I have addressed those groups of amendments quite swiftly. If Members of the Committee do not feel that I have done them justice, I will be happy to write to them with further detail on any additional points.