Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments 162AA, 164A, 164B and 165ZA. This large group contains amendments that are all concerned with the requirement to consult, and we come back to what is now becoming a familiar theme from earlier debates: the Government’s wish to prescribe, and having done so, making lists. Once you start making a list, the debate begins about who is and is not on it and why, and so on. The Government are following the logic of their own initial mistake. Amendment 162ZA makes the requirement to consult permissive rather than prescriptive in subsection (5) so that the principal local authority ““may”” consult whomsoever it wishes. Of course, it already does so and will continue to do so, but rather than say that it must consult, and then go on at some length about who it must consult—no doubt to be prescribed in guidance—and how it must be done, this should be a permissive measure. If the Government are serious about their light-touch approach, they should accept the amendment. Amendment 162AA would include parish councils specifically in the Bill. Again, at an earlier stage in our debates we all agreed about the importance of parish councils. This amendment recognises that and ensures that they are included. Either they ““must”” be consulted or, possibly, they ““may”” be consulted. Amendment 164A gets into the lists. We went through all this at considerable length on Chapter 2, and here we are again. Amendment 164A specifically adds a police authority, a crime and disorder reduction partnership, a local probation board and a youth offending team. The purpose of the amendment at this stage is to probe why they are not there. They are obviously partner authorities, and they will obviously continue to be consulted in the preparation of economic assessments. No doubt, the Minister will shortly tell us why they are not there. Amendment 164B adds the Health and Safety Executive. Again, it is not on the list, and we probe and wonder why not. Amendment 165ZA removes the right of the Secretary of State to remove by order any person—person is defined in the Bill—he or she may wish to. Again, I return to the point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It may just possibly be that one day we shall have a Secretary of State who thinks that she or he would like to run every local authority in the country. That is an inconceivable thought to some of us, but it is not necessarily going to be the same Secretary of State who we have known and loved in the past. It will not necessarily for ever be the same benign Government, so well disposed towards local government, as we have now. The Government are determined to legislate for the worst councils; it is fair enough that we should consider the possibility of having the worst Governments at some time in the future. It is as likely as having bad councils that we will one day have bad Governments. The last of my amendments in the group, Amendment 165ZB, speaks for itself. I beg to move.