Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I am once again grateful to the Minister for her full reply, but she has not managed to reassure me about misuse by a less benevolent future Government. The fact that all these powers already exist and have never been used is not a reassurance that they will never be used, nor a reassurance regarding the circumstances in which they might be used. We are talking about a future Secretary of State and what he may or may not want to do. Clause 73(2) states: "““Before revising a regional strategy … the Secretary of State … may arrange for an examination in public to be held””—" ““may”” but not ““must””. That is inconsistent with what was in the Bill earlier. I would not have it there at all so I am not advocating that it should say ““must””. I just ask where the reassurance is made in that provision. Subsection (2)(b) states that the Secretary of State, "““must consult such persons (if any)””—" we do not have a long list of the persons to be consulted, as in other parts of the Bill. I seem to remember moving an amendment to include the words ““if any”” and having it roundly rubbished. The paragraph continues, "““as the Secretary of State considers appropriate””." A malignant Secretary of State in some inconceivable future world may not have an examination in public. He may conclude that nobody is worth consulting and just rewrite the regional strategy. These may sound like far-fetched circumstances, and I hope that they are. I keep saying that we are legislating for worst-case scenarios, and I want to turn the tables and consider such scenarios from a local authority point of view. I am grateful to the Minister and not in the least surprised that she has failed to reassure me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 166C withdrawn. Amendments 166D to 168B not moved. Clause 65 agreed.