Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I will have a go. I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouragement. The noble Lord raises a very important point, and I am happy to try to reassure him and to ensure that the Committee knows that both parts of the Bill are not merely compatible but are interdependent. The amendments that the noble Lord has listed would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to promote local democracy and the involvement of local people before creating or amending an EPB or combined authority. If we cast our minds back to those three glorious days at the beginning of the Committee stage when we went into the local democracy clause in extraordinary detail, the noble Lord will know that we are taking this issue very seriously indeed, as he has always done. I am sure that he knows that EPBs and combined authorities are listed under Clause 2(3)(j) as connected authorities for the purpose of the duty to promote democracy. The challenge that he has posed is why they need to be there when, as he suggests, they are not particularly democratic bodies. I dispute that, however, because those local authorities that come together to form an EPB will be serving the local community. They will have elected members on them and will be part of the local democratic organisation. They must show what they are about and how they work. They must show why certain people are on them and how their work will benefit the local community. That is the sort of thing that we are asking local authorities to drive at through the duty to promote democracy. How they arrive at their decisions is the sort of thing that I said that I would take away and think about in terms of the noble Lord’s suggestion and in terms of decision-making. The EPB will make decisions, so it is important that it is as transparent and open as possible and that people know how they might put themselves forward as possible members. Although there will be a majority of elected members, there will also be space for other people representing local interests. I see no reason why local activists—whether from the employment sector or whatever—should not be considered for that sort of role and, importantly, influence what goes on. They could legitimately be included here and there will be lots of opportunities for people to be involved. More than that, although the noble Lord did not allude to this, consequential amendments in paragraph 18 of Schedule 6 will have the effect of applying Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 to EPBs and combined authorities. That means that meetings will need to be open, and papers and minutes will be available for inspection by members of the public, so they will be completely transparent. In addition, by virtue of paragraph 91 of Schedule 6, EPBs and combined authorities will be best value authorities and are therefore subject to the duty to involve. Those measures and the fact that at least a majority of members of an EPB will be elected councillors will give the Secretary of State sufficient confidence that they will indeed promote local democracy and the involvement of local people, without having to consider that separately before they are created. On the need for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to promote economic, social and environmental sustainability, there is no doubt that EPBs will have a strong focus on economic issues. The Secretary of State will already be required under Clause 94 to consider the evidence and the likelihood that an EPB will improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development and regeneration and economic conditions. Very early on in our debates, I said that to pose a challenge between economic growth and economic and social sustainability is a false dichotomy. Throughout our legislation, we write about sustainable economic development because we are in the business of sustainability. It does not make human sense not to be. We have covered social sustainability in Clause 94 by the need for the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests and identities of local communities, and the need to secure effective and convenient local government before making a statutory order. That makes it clear that it has to be a major consideration. In terms of environmental sustainability, EPBs will be expected to follow national and regional policy. The regional strategy, for example, has sustainable development at its core. PPS1, our major piece of planning architecture, is on sustainable development and will include policies designed to contribute to tackling climate change. We can take confidence from that. The noble Lord may also wish to know that the combined authorities will be under a duty to take into account policies and guidance on climate change and environmental protection when carrying out their transfer functions under Section 8 of the Local Transport Act 2008. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that EPBs will not in any way run counter to our ambitions to promote local democracy, more transparency and more involvement, to nurture cohesive communities and to protect and enhance the natural environment. I hope that he will change his mind from where he was when he spoke to previous amendments.