Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

It is a pleasure to start what I hope will be the last day of Committee stage of the Bill. In moving Amendment 189, I shall speak also to Amendments 190, 191, 192, 196, 197 and the Question whether Schedule 6 shall stand part of the Bill. This group returns to the theme of where the role of the Secretary of State should end and where that of local authorities should begin. I also have a number of probing amendments, because I want to explore the Government’s intentions. Amendment 189, on which Amendment 191 is essentially consequential, addresses the astonishing provision in Clause 86(1) that the Secretary of State would be allowed to seize the local authority’s right to exercise its own functions and transfer that right to an economic prosperity board. I am afraid that I cannot see what justification there could be for central government to step in and mix functions around in this way. I agree that it may be useful and appropriate, if economic prosperity boards are to be established, for participating local authorities to pool their sovereignty, as it were. That is why my amendment allows local authorities to decide for themselves when and how to transfer functions to be exercised by an economic prosperity board. I will listen to and read the response by the noble Baroness to this amendment with great interest, because at the moment I fail to see how the role of the Secretary of State in this matter is correct. Noble Lords will realise that this is certainly a matter to which we shall have to return, unless the Government reconsider their position. Until they do, I have a further question. Amendment 190 narrows the meaning of "functions" to those relating to economic development and regeneration. Will the noble Baroness be prepared to accept that tighter definition and, if not, why not? If economic prosperity boards are to help local authorities focus their economic development goals and address their needs, I can see no reason why unrelated functions of local authorities should be exercisable by the economic prosperity board. I would welcome clarity on the definition of "functions" from the Government, because at the moment the Bill does not really contain any assurance to those who are concerned that this new tier of quasi-democratic regional government will not accumulate powers and functions that it does not and should not need. Amendment 192 is to ensure that economic prosperity boards cannot levy taxes or charges. In Amendment 196, I propose to delete a paragraph of Schedule 6 which I believe bolsters that viewpoint. I have done so to uphold the simple maxim that there should be no taxation without representation. I am afraid that, in my opinion, that semi-appointed, Secretary of State-beholden body does not fall into that category. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that economic prosperity boards will not have these inappropriate powers. Amendment 197 deletes the paragraph from Schedule 6 that amends the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993, which would allow economic prosperity boards as well as local authorities to provide assistance to overseas bodies. I am aware that that Act precludes direct financial assistance, but I raise the issue as an example of the potential waste and duplication inherent in creating another tier. Will local authorities and economic prosperity boards compete for foreign influence? For example, will they both assist the same overseas body? If local authorities are able to do these things anyway, why should these new, quasi-elected bodies be able to muscle in and duplicate that work? The same is true of so many of the functions and provisions that are transferred to economic prosperity boards by virtue of the schedule, which I have signalled my opposition to standing part of the Bill. Is the duplication of all those powers necessary to help local authorities to share their expertise, which is the fundamental point of this part of the Bill? I want to use these amendments to tease out how the Government see the practicalities of economic prosperity boards. They tell us that the aim is to provide welcome assistance to local authorities helping struggling communities in this recession. They are not intended to form embryonic regional governments, apparently. I argue that, if the functions conferred on economic prosperity boards are not strictly necessary for the exercise of the former option, we run the risk of helping to create the latter.