Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has just said and the gracious way in which she said it. I have a couple of speaking notes, but I will reply in kind in due course. These four amendments take us back to some serious debates in Committee and on Report. They relate to the composition of the local authorities’ leaders’ boards and the detail of their working arrangements. My noble friend, who has been such a champion of national parks in every piece of legislation and policy in this House, has returned to this argument and challenged me to convince him. I shall try to convince him about how we have not been able to meet entirely what I hoped on Report we would be able to do. I will briefly talk in general terms about how the leaders’ boards and the RDAs will work with individual authorities and the role played by regional strategies in delivering sustainable development. We debated those issues at some length on Report, and I promised to come back with proposals to ensure that the national parks are represented at regional level without undermining the principle of self-organisation. I also agreed to look again at the way in which responsible regional authorities would work with individual local authorities. This is the final opportunity for me to explain how we think that what we are doing now will meet what noble Lords around the Chamber want and what will make a practical difference. I sympathise with the position of my noble friend and that of noble Lords opposite and their desire to secure provisions in the Bill that ensure that the new regional arrangements are truly representative of all local authorities, with particular regard to the national parks and broads authorities. I know that noble Lords have reflected concerns of authorities which have argued that they may lose their voice under the new arrangements. I am pleased to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in particular, that the Government are entirely at one with the principles underpinning the amendment. That is why the new arrangements give local authorities, including the national parks and the broads authorities an even stronger voice than they have had to date. However, I know that my responses so far have not provided the reassurance that noble Lords were looking for, so I want briefly to highlight the two key principles of our approach and how it is intended to work. First, there is throughout the Bill a fundamental respect for the autonomy of local authorities, including the national parks and broads authorities. That is what noble Lords always urge on the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said in a debate on a previous amendment that we should show faith with local authorities and not interfere with local authority determination. The language that she used in Committee was that we should treat local authorities as mature bodies, as grown-ups. In the course of our debates, I have repeatedly emphasised the need to provide for regional and local flexibility and the principle that local authorities, national parks and broads authorities should determine their own arrangements. That must include the composition and operation of the leaders’ board. The second and balancing principle is that leaders’ boards should represent all local authorities in their region. The Bill already provides us with the right approach and the right tools. To explain, the leaders’ board is the means for authorities to have a collective voice at regional level to fulfil their responsibility for preparing, implementing and monitoring regional strategy jointly with the RDA. The scheme that they are required to produce by establishing the leaders’ board is critical in securing proper local authority representation and credible working arrangements between the leaders’ board and individual authorities. The scheme therefore needs to set out not only who will sit on the leaders’ board to represent local authorities but how it is to operate—how it will reflect the views of the local authorities that it is there to represent. What we want to achieve, therefore, is the right and most efficient balance between self-determination and non-negotiable criteria that the scheme in each region must respect. That is why the Bill provides the safeguard of Secretary of State approval for the scheme. The points that are non-negotiable and will be made crystal clear in guidance are that there must be representation on leaders’ boards from all types of authorities in the region and a reciprocal relationship between the leaders’ board and each individual authority. I sincerely hope that that helps noble Lords to understand better why we think that the Bill should still remain silent about the composition or operation of the board. Let me be clear: the Secretary of State will not approve a scheme that does not meet those non-negotiable criteria. If I explain that in relation to the amendments, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has laid Amendment 51 to Clause 68 and proposes that the leaders’ board should include at least one representative from each type of authority in the region that has planning responsibilities. As I said, the Government fully agree with the principle that the membership of the leaders’ board should include representation from each type of participant authority: county, unitary, district and national parks authorities, as well as the Broads Authority. My noble friend has already quoted correspondence from my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, but I will state it again, as I think that I, too, should put on the record the fact that we propose to prepare early guidance about leaders’ boards, in which we will clarify that the Secretary of State will not approve a scheme for a leaders’ board unless any NPA interests are guaranteed to have at least one seat on the board. Let me answer the question raised by my noble friend. Where there is only one national park authority in the region, it will be represented on the board; where there is more than one, and there are regions with more than one, we use the terminology about representation of interests because they have to find a way in which the interests of both authorities are represented. We could not be clearer than that and by putting it on the record today I hope that it will be crystal clear to everyone involved in constructing the scheme for a leaders’ board. This will ensure that the practical effect of what my noble friend and we both want is achieved, which is to ensure that the national parks are represented on every leaders’ board. However, because we believe passionately in the need to respect and reflect local autonomy and local ecology, we feel that the Bill as a matter of principle should still remain silent on the composition of the board. By doing what the noble Lord wants through guidance, we believe that we can get that balance of local determination and ensuring that leaders’ boards are representative of all authorities in the region. I hope that on those grounds I can dissuade my noble friend from dividing on his amendment, because I have to say that the amendment is seriously flawed. In particular, the phrase "authorities with planning responsibilities" could be interpreted as applying to a range of bodies that I am sure he did not have in mind. For example, urban development corporations, RDAs and other agencies such as the HCA could all be said to have some planning responsibilities under planning legislation. I am afraid that, if this amendment were to find its way into the Bill, there would be genuine confusion as to the requirements for the composition of the leaders’ boards. I now turn briefly to Amendments 52 and 53 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Amendment 52 to Clause 71 would explicitly require the responsible regional authorities to set out in their statement of policies on community involvement how they will involve individual participant authorities and how such policies must provide for authorities to make representations, give advice and initiate proposals relevant to their area. Amendment 53 to Clause 77 would explicitly require the responsible regional authorities to prepare and publish a statement of policies on involving persons who appear to them to have an interest in the preparation of the implementation plan. These are quite ingenious amendments—I am never surprised at the ingenuity of the Liberals—but I understand the desire to be sure that the new arrangements will secure a voice for individual authorities that may not have a member on the leaders’ board and that the responsible authorities will involve stakeholders in the preparation of the implementation plan. I hope to convince the noble Lord that the amendments are not necessary. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I promised to consider whether we needed to include explicit provision in the Bill for reciprocal duties between the responsible regional authorities and the individual local authorities not represented on the board. Some authorities have argued that they will not have a voice at regional level unless a provision similar to that set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act is retained. Peers accordingly proposed a number of amendments to this effect. Indeed, the House considered and voted on one of these on Report. It would have required the responsible regional authorities to seek advice from NPAs, county and unitary authorities and, in two-tier areas, it would have required the county councils to liaise with district councils. I am pleased to say that it was defeated. The Bill envisages a much stronger role for all authorities, including NPAs, in all aspects of the regional strategy preparation, implementation and monitoring than that provided under existing legislation. As participating authorities, NPAs and all other local authorities in each region will share joint responsibility for regional strategy together with the RDA. The leaders’ board is the means to enable all the authorities to act collectively at the regional level. It should therefore be defined and organised by them in the interests of regional self-determination. As I have said, the Bill requires the participating authorities to make a scheme that covers the composition of their leaders’ board and, crucially, how the board will operate. It will be for the participating authorities to design the leaders’ board and to set out how it will do the job of preparing, implementing and monitoring strategy. For example, if the participating authorities in a region want the authorities for different sub-regions to prepare initial drafts of the strategy, they can set that out in the scheme. It is the scheme, therefore, that will set out the extent, the scope and the nature of the reciprocal relationship between the collective board and individual authorities. The responsible authorities will also need to elaborate in their statement of community involvement and any project plans for strategy reviews how they will draw on the expertise of individual authorities and what contribution they expect from those authorities. We fully expect the responsible regional authorities to draw on the expertise of all the local authorities, including NPAs. As I have said, the Secretary of State would not sanction a scheme that did not commit to an explicit, reciprocal arrangement between the collective leaders’ board and individual authorities. I have gone into that degree of detail because I want it on the record for those local authorities that will work in the future to set up leaders’ boards and to ensure that they will work. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content that the Bill provides a coherent framework and that we can all be satisfied that it is the obligation of local authorities, including the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority, when drawing up the scheme for their leaders’ board, to make it abundantly clear how the board is to develop a reciprocal relationship with individual authorities. Amendment 53 would introduce a separate requirement for a statement of policies on involving stakeholders in relation to the implementation plan. That would effectively duplicate the provisions in Clause 71. The community involvement statement under Clause 71 should serve for all purposes relevant to the regional strategy, which includes the implementation plan. I hope that that covers the point. Finally, I have tabled Amendment 54 so that Clause 80, headed "Sustainable development", will follow Clause 69 in the Bill. That will make it abundantly clear that, in preparing, implementing and monitoring the regional strategy, the responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of State have a duty to contribute to sustainable development. Noble Lords welcomed the proposal when I made it on Report and I am pleased to bring it forward now.