Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

We on these Benches have three amendments in this group. I do not want to detain the Committee by making a Second Reading speech, but I will put on the record a comment that I made in response to the suggested groupings that we received on Friday; there were so many amendments and such long groupings because all this amounts to the fact that we really do not like this. My Amendment 160E deals with subsequent parts of the Bill that we like even less than the economic assessment provisions, and would provide that the local authorities should prepare assessments in accordance with their own criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has used the term ““autonomy””, which is the first word that I wrote down in my notes on this amendment. The assessment should not be top down. Most authorities, after all, do not need to be told that they need to assess the economic situation of their own area. The two clauses in this part of the Bill do not explain the purpose of economic assessments. It is common sense that one would carry them out. In many different ways, they provide for the Secretary of State to direct the process, so central government will tell local authorities what to do but not why. Amendment 160F would provide that, "““In preparing the assessment, the authority shall have regard to social and environmental matters””." We are really concerned that the economic focus of the previous three or four parts of the Bill will undermine, and possibly even edge on driving out, the other facets of sustainable development. The three facets—social and environmental as well as economic—together with other matters which are perhaps of a second order rank but which are now generally accepted as going along with them, such as the sensible use of science, should be inseparable. I accept that economic and environmental issues may need to be balanced but they should all remain within the same part of the consideration. They cannot be separated in practice anyway because, for instance, economic problems may well lead to an increase in social needs. To focus so rigidly on economic matters carries with it very great danger. My Amendment 161A is consequential on the other two amendments. We support the Conservative’s Amendments 160D and 161. I do not see the point or the necessity for these clauses. That would not matter except that central Government are requiring local authorities to carry out yet another function, and will probably require them to do it a bit differently from the way it has been done—this is not a new point on the Bill—which will result in a waste of resources, officer time, member time and money.