Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Prequential; I am grateful. I also speak to Amendments 194L, 194P, 194AK and 194AP, all of which are the same four amendments, adding to the things to which the Secretary of State must have regard when establishing or changing an EPB, or establishing or changing a combined authority. The Bill says that, ""the Secretary of State must have regard to the need— (a) to reflect the identifies and interests of local communities, and (b) to secure effective and convenient local government"," both of which are desirable but not necessarily democratic. Either could be carried out undemocratically. My amendment would add the requirement that the Secretary of State should have regard to the need, ""to promote local democracy and the involvement of local people in local democratic arrangements and decision-making"," and, ""to promote economic, social and environmental sustainability"." There are two points here. The first point is about democracy and involvement. I tabled the amendment because of the Government’s emphasis in the early parts of the Bill on exactly that kind of process. It is a tongue-in-cheek amendment, really—a cheeky amendment—because the whole concept of an economic prosperity board and involving local people in local democratic arrangements and decision-making are not compatible. The economic prosperity boards will not be the kinds of bodies that lend themselves to the involvement of local people in local democracy. It is taking decision-making a step further away from local democracy, in so far as local democracy involves elections and people making decisions, making it more indirect and remote. Moreover, people will find it very difficult indeed to get involved in the structures themselves and to become members of them, unless they are members of a small, local, privileged elite who are lucky enough to be co-opted as the new-style aldermen on these bodies, if they have them. Membership of them will be impossible for most people, because they will have to become leader of their local council before they can be a member. Being leader of the council is not open to a lot of people, whereas being an ordinary councillor is. That is the real difference. I put that forward as an example of how the two parts of the Bill conflict. I will listen with interest to what the Minister says, but I do not believe that there is anything she can possibly say that will satisfy me and make me believe that my amendment is in any way compatible with the organisation that is being set up. The second point is important and goes back to the fear, which we discussed on regional structures, that the Government at a regional and sub-regional level are putting more emphasis on the economic to the exclusion of social and environmental sustainability. There is a real fear that environmental sustainability and social sustainability are being pushed back, and that all that will really matter in the future is economic advancement and sustainability. Economic advancement and sustainability are extremely important in the present economic circumstances of the country, but there is a real danger that that will be used to push back the real advances that have been made in recent years in the other fields. I beg to move.