Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I was not expecting that question to be asked in relation to this group of amendments, so I shall simply have to answer by saying what I believe to be the case. There is, in any case, some important information that I should like to convey. The noble Lord has helped to explain why these groups of amendments seem to be moving in opposite directions, asking for contradictory things. With regard to Amendments 193F, 194B, 194Z and 194AB, I am prepared to give more thought to the role of districts in relation to changing the boundaries of EPBs or combined authorities. Those amendments picked out some issues relating to boundaries, so I will look at the role and status of districts and also at the issues relating to boundaries. Amendment 183D and the consequent amendments would remove the possibility that only part of a county council—that is, some but not all of the non-unitary districts in a county—could be part of an EPB. As I said before, EPBs are very much about trying to improve outcomes by allowing economic development activity to be more effectively co-ordinated across a functional area. That leads me to make a very important point. EPBs and combined authorities are not measures to make changes to local authority boundaries. It has been said that this is local government reorganisation by the back door, but it certainly is not. EPBs are based on existing local government boundaries. We obviously have different mechanisms if we want to change boundaries and whole local authority areas will come together in EPBs. By constricting the areas to only counties or unitary authorities, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would significantly reduce the ability of EPBs to pick up the sub-regional economic geographies, which will be very different in different regions. Districts in any one county will often fall into different sub-regional economies. Therefore, we have to allow for flexibility here, and it does not seem to be helpful to prevent a particular district, if it wishes to do so, aligning itself in an EPB with an area that is strongly connected to its own, even if it does not make sense for the county as a whole. The county council should obviously be involved in making decisions about an area for which it has responsibility. We are looking for very pragmatic and sensible arrangements here. I should also point out that, if only part of a county enters into an EPB, all the districts within that part will have to give their express consent. We have discussed it before and I return to that point. How will EPBs sit and what tier of authority will they be? I am not sure that it is very helpful to think in terms of tiers. We are looking for these functional bodies to be alongside local authorities and doing different things, but they will essentially draw on the powers that they need to deliver economic objectives. Essentially, EPBs allow local authorities to be together. Where they will sit within the range of descriptions that noble Lords offered will depend on the authorities involved. They may sit at different positions. They are a mechanism for collaboration between and across existing tiers, and that is the best way to think of them. We want to give local authorities as much flexibility as possible to form arrangements. To make it impossible for non-unitary districts to recognise their economic links, as I have said previously, seems to be counterproductive. However, on the broader point to which the noble Lord addressed his amendments, I hope that he is satisfied by my rather pragmatic response.