Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

We have a number of amendments in this group. Part 6 has been described as ““enabling”” and ““voluntary””. I do not for a moment doubt the Minister’s intentions, and I thank her and her officials for the helpful meeting that she arranged and for providing us with government documents. I do not mean confidential documents; rather, she pointed us to documents on the website that flesh out the Government’s proposals. However, the provisions do not look very voluntary, and what is in the Bill is what matters. I am hoping that the Minister can explain what local authorities could not achieve without Part 6 and without the intervention of the Secretary of State, who pops up in pretty much every clause. It reminds me a little of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in which the Secretary of State is mentioned more often than the Mayor of London. This looks rather like back-door local government reorganisation towards something which is not democratic. We regard these clauses as being quite insidious. If one accepts the premise of what the Government are doing, the conditions that are applied may be sensible, although we would say, ““Let local authorities work it out for themselves””, because all this is very top-down. However, the economic prosperity boards look like local authorities in many ways, and we all know that if something walks, talks, and squawks like a duck—and so on. The EPBs can exercise local authority functions. Under the next part of the Bill on multi-area agreements, they are actually within the definition of local authorities, but access to information is not automatic, proportionality is disapplied and the keeping of records is under the Secretary of State’s aegis. What is not said, but what those of us of the sceptical tendency say, is that if local authorities do not sign up to all of this they will find that the funding available to them reduces. They will also be—in fact, they already are—subject to pressure from local authorities with a different attitude to life. We are aware of a problem in the south-west, where from some quarters there are proposals for an early transfer which would lead to membership very much out of kilter with political representation on a population basis. Understandably and appropriately, this is causing a great deal of concern and real anxiety. I assume that Clause 83(1), whereby the Secretary of State can make an order, is technically required because of the transfer of functions; that is not the only reference. I look forward to the explanation for that. We do not accept the Government’s premise. In Amendment 183F we say that it is up to the members to sort out their own constitution. That amendment implicitly accepts the initial establishment by the Secretary of State, which in itself would be a considerable concession. Under Amendment 193B to Clause 90 changes would be at the request of the EPB. Amendments 193C and 193D are about the makeup of EPB areas; the Minister will, I know, explain why the amendments are misconceived. Amendments 194W and 194X make the same point. Amendment 194M to Clause 96 on the preparation for the scheme on review is to make that a matter for the majority of members. Amendment 194AM makes the same point. Amendment 194T again accepts for this purpose that the Secretary of State’s order is needed to establish an EPB. We say that the constitution is a matter for the majority of members. I appreciate that a good deal of what I have said begs the question about the weight of votes. I look forward to what Minister has to say on that, because we can then go at the next stage into the detail of how some of this would work. The weighting of votes will be a part of that. Amendment 194AQ is to Clause 109, which enables the Secretary of State to make incidental provision. I do not much like it, in particular the extensiveness of the order whereby the Secretary of State can disapply, repeal or revoke any enactment. I am sure that I shall be told that this is so closely linked to the first part of Clause 109 that I should not be too troubled by it, but I am. I anticipate that the Minister will explain that my concern in Amendment 195A is illogical. I had not intended it to remain, but I thought it better not to try to remove it. Amendment 195B would provide for guidance to an integrated transport authority. I understand that other legislation provides for that. I find it confusing that one needs to go on a treasure hunt for some of these things, but I have no doubt that the Minister will confirm the position. That was something of a Second Reading speech, but it amounts to a single, simple point: we do not believe that Part 6 should stand part of the Bill.