Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall speak also to Amendments 175 and 176. This group of amendments pertains to the review and revision of regional strategy. Two of my amendments, Amendments 174 and 176, are probing in nature. Amendment 175 is a more substantive issue. I agree with the underlying thrust of the clause. Authorities must of course keep regional strategy under review. As circumstances change, it is vital that the responsible authorities remain alert to what they might need to adopt in their strategies. However, I have some questions about the way in which the Bill sets out how the review should be conducted. It is not the right approach for the Secretary of State to tell authorities what to do. Authorities should not simply wait to be told by central government to review their strategies; they ought to take that initiative themselves. Local authorities know best what is going on in their own areas. They will be immediately aware of fluctuations or variations in the strength of the local economy, of development needs, of pressures on local infrastructure and so on. We do not need to involve the Secretary of State in every such matter; it is both bureaucratic and cumbersome and sends out a strong signal that local authorities cannot be properly trusted to do what is needed locally. This is the matter raised by Amendment 175. Amendment 174 should be read in the light of that. It is not necessary for the Secretary of State to be the directing force in ordering a review, but, equally, local authorities must step up to meet that responsibility. I believe that they can do so. Amendment 174 merely draws attention to the fact that a review must be a necessity; it need not be every five years. I chose that time span because when I read through the Bill, with all its centralising provisions, five-year plans keep popping into my head. We do not need to get bogged down in a precise figure; I simply wish to emphasise the importance of the local authority having a review of regional strategy when it feels that it is correct to do so according to the circumstances on the ground. Amendment 176 again probes the meaning of ““from time to time”” in respect of the review of community involvement policies. ““From time to time”” is such a vague phrase as to be almost meaningless. I have suggested ““when they see fit””, because the policies may stay fresh and relevant and need not be changed, in which case, a review for the sake of fulfilling the requirements of the clause would be unnecessary. Alternatively, a policy may need more urgent reviewing. The wording of my amendment would allow the authorities to react quickly to meet that need, whereas ““from time to time”” suggests that a review could be kicked into the long grass no matter what the circumstances. I am sure that the Minister will assuage my concerns, but ““from time to time”” is a curious phrase. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it. I beg to move.