Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I very much go along with what the two previous speakers have said. I have tabled Amendment 160G in this group. I also oppose the Question that Clause 63 stand part of the Bill in order to ask one or two fairly fundamental questions, some of which were touched on by my noble friend. Amendment 160G questions whether, in making this economic assessment, local authorities really are starting from scratch and with an empty sheet, and whether many of them have not already met the requirements of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, suggested that Essex had spent a lot of time carrying out an economic assessment, conducting a survey of its area for the purposes of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which we discussed not long ago, and collecting wider economic information. There is a real danger that setting out a whole series of detailed requirements on how a council has to go about collecting this information will result in duplication and with no new information being collected that would not have been collected anyway. A lot of time and energy could be taken up unnecessarily. Therefore, Amendment 160G says that the duty to carry out the economic assessment, "““is fulfilled if, on the day this section commences—""(a) such an assessment has been prepared within the previous five years by the principal local authority, another principal local authority, a partner authority, any other appropriate body, or a combination of any of these””." In other words, if the information that is being sought already exists and there are great piles of paper with it all written down and many sites on the council’s computers are storing it, probably rather more tidily, it is ridiculous for a local authority to have to start again and collect it from scratch under this part of the Bill. The second part suggests that it does not all have to be done at once, but in stages for different areas. It may be that work is required only on certain parts of a large unitary or county authority, perhaps because of a particular problem such as declining industry, unemployment or other economic problems and opportunities. There might be an opportunity to make improvements to the transport infrastructure which leads to the possibility for development and thus economic progress. That is common sense. As regards whether Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill, like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend, I question whether there is any lack of information. In relation to Part 4, the Briefing Pack for Peers dated 5 December last states: "““Local authorities are to have a well-informed, robust assessment of economic conditions to inform local and regional strategies””." The argument is that in many cases they will already have it. The briefing goes on to say: "““Although some local authorities take their economic role very seriously and have made real progress, evidence shows that the quality, depth and scope of local economic assessments vary considerably””." We know, of course, that local variation is something this Government do not like. It continues: "““The failure of some authorities to develop a robust, accurate economic evidence base has hampered their development of coherent economic strategies””." Before we are satisfied that this clause is needed, which at the moment we do not think it is, what is the evidence that the failure of some authorities to do this has hampered their development of coherent economic strategies? Which authorities does it concern? Are we going to have some authorities named and shamed, or is it more a general view that, ““Well, there’s too much variation. Everything is being done in different ways. We don’t like it and we want to set out detailed rules and regulations””? Will carrying out all this extra work, in many cases duplicated work, change anything on the ground? Will it change policies or will it be just another way to produce a series of big fat reports that gather dust on the shelves until they have to be revised? My next question is this: what is the purpose of local elections if everything has to be controlled from above in the technocratic way implied by these provisions? Lastly, do the Government have any idea of what sort of document they are talking about? How big should it be? The impact assessment sets out how much it will or will not cost to produce, and as usual I have tried to understand it, but I cannot. Essentially, though, the Government are saying that it will not cost much, if anything. I have no feeling for what kind of document is envisaged. Should it be a 10-page report, one of 50 pages or of 2,000 pages giving a detailed economic assessment of a widespread county like Lancashire, or a big city such as Manchester or Liverpool? I hope that we can be given answers to these questions.