Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall give the numbers of our amendments in this large group as I go through it. The group is about the role of local authorities. The first amendment, Amendment 183C, is to Clause 83. It would provide that the establishment of EPBs required the participation and consent of each local government area; that is, all the areas meeting the conditions listed in the clause. Amendment 194R would provide the same in the case of what I shall have to call a combined authority for the moment. The amendment must speak for itself about participation and consent. Amendment 183E would provide that, before making an order, the Secretary of State must consult the local government areas in question and specifically—this goes to the point of the boards—consult, "““as to the effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to promote economic development and regeneration within their areas””," determine that an EPB would be likely to improve them, and then, "““publish his determination with reasons””." I think that it will be obvious from the debate so far that not only are we opposed to the whole scheme for reasons of it being local government reorganisation by the back door, its lack of democracy and so on but also we are sceptical as to whether it is the right way to approach the matter. It might be said that if local authorities want an EPB, they should have one and that Amendment 183E would be telling the Secretary of State to go where she should not tread. That would not be the case. It is no answer to say that local authorities want one, because that answer is likely to be incomplete. There will be a variety of views across a wide spectrum. A step as extreme as transferring local authority powers requires reasoned justification. Amendment 194S is the same amendment applied to combined authorities. Amendment 188B would require the agreement of all authorities affected to the transfer of functions to the EPB or allowing the EPB to exercise functions in addition to the local authorities. Again, Amendment 194U would apply that to combined authorities. Amendment 194F is an amendment to Clause 93, subsection (6) of which appears to enable county councils to ride roughshod over the districts in their area if all the districts are within the scheme. This seems inappropriate, to use a mild term. Again, Amendment 194AF would apply the same provision in the case of a combined authority. Amendment 194G amends Clause 94; it would remove the requirement that the Secretary of State’s order has, "““regard to a scheme prepared and published under””," the previous clause. I accept that that is perhaps an overreaction because of my concerns about the imposition of the scheme, so let me frame the justification for the amendment by asking the Minister to confirm that the provision is merely saying that the scheme would be designed and then franked by the Secretary of State and nothing more. Amendment 194AG would be the same amendment relating to a combined authority. Amendment 194H would require the Secretary of State to publish her reasons for the establishment of the EPB. Amendment 194AH is the same amendment for a combined authority. Finally, Amendment 194V would mean that any provisions or conditions that apply to orders regarding the EPB should apply in the case of combined authorities. I beg to move.