Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

This amendment, it might be said, is a precautionary amendment. I am concerned about the implications of Clause 67(2), because it might mean more than first meets the eye. Clause 67 describes what is to be classed as the responsible regional authorities; that is, the RDA and the leaders’ board, which subsection (1) makes clear will act jointly. However, subsection (2) says that in the event that there is no leaders’ board, because it either has been disbanded or has yet to be established, the responsible authority will be the regional development authority alone. The amendment would remove that possibility, meaning that there could be a responsible regional authority only if both the RDA and the leaders’ board were established. In so far as it does that, I hope that the Minister will agree that it would strengthen the position of leaders’ boards, as set out in subsection (1), to act jointly as the responsible regional authority. Clause 66, which allows leaders’ boards to be established, does not allow them to be established easily or even at all. Everything must be approved by the Secretary of State: the Secretary of State holds the purse strings and the Secretary of State can bring the whole thing to a sudden end if she does not think that the scheme is working to her satisfaction. In such a scenario, that would simply leave the RDA as the sole regional authority. I know that the Government do not share my scepticism about RDAs being the most appropriate or effective bodies for facilitating local development, but even the Minister must accept that this provision, which would simply allow the RDAs to carry on as if the leaders’ board had never been dreamt up, makes a mockery of the Bill’s stated aim of handing power back to local people. Subsection (2) appears to be open-ended, and the RDA could carry on acting as a responsible regional authority indefinitely. If a future Secretary of State, not as conscientious as the present one, were to fail to approve a leaders’ board for whatever reason—perhaps over a disagreement on whether a particular leaders’ board would meet his or her chosen targets—then it would be as if the leaders’ board were entirely irrelevant. I cannot understand why the noble Baroness is content to allow such a glaring loophole to go unchecked in the Bill. Subsection (2) openly provides for a democratic deficit to carry on for as long as the Secretary of State sees fit. What is to stop the RDA during this time pushing through plans to revise a regional strategy, which will then never be scrutinised by the elected accountable members of a leaders’ board? It is clear that there are many parts of the Bill that we are unhappy with, but I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that Amendment 172B would improve the democratic accountability of the provisions. I do not think that it is satisfactory for the Secretary of State to be able, in effect, to circumvent what democratic checks there are in this part. I hope that the noble Baroness will take away this issue at this stage to consider it further. I beg to move.