Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

We have two amendments in this group: Amendments 169ZA and 169B. The first follows on from points made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I have been concerned for some time that the Government’s concept of strong leadership carries with it weak everyone else. There is a danger that individual councillors who are not leaders may be squeezed out of, above all, information. My Amendment 169ZA takes us on one stage from that, in that I fear that the leaders’ boards may squeeze out some parties. In the local government world—this is referred to in one of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—we are used to the arrangement that provides for the proportionality of political parties on any given council across its committees. I realise that I show my age, in political terms at any rate, in thinking in committee terms. Proportionality is important; it recognises the role that representatives of all political parties, not just those of the Administration, have to play. Amendment 169ZA would provide for the representation of all parties in participating authorities, including some sort of device to include independent members. Amendment 169B continues the theme and would remove the Secretary of State’s role in approving the scheme for setting up the leaders’ boards. We make it perfectly clear that we think that it is a matter for the authorities. I probably need say no more about that.