Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

That is fine. It can be a good thing or a bad thing, but there is no point denying that that is happening. It may be the right thing to do in the country’s present economic circumstances. Let us understand that and I want to keep the balance. I am unhappy about the intention of securing, ""effective and convenient local government"," in this Bill, when referring to the new boards. Those are precisely the words in the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to reorganising local government. They are the words used in relation to setting up parish councils and parish reviews. These words are usually used, in my experience, in relation to democratically elected local authorities. Here they are used in relation to non-democratic or indirectly democratic, non-elected boards. This is another of the little things that confirms my view that unelected quasi-local authorities that are fundamentally undesirable are being created. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 194K withdrawn. Amendment 194L not moved. Clause 94 agreed. Clause 95 agreed. Clause 96 : Preparation and publication of scheme: existing EPB Amendment 194M not moved. Clause 96 agreed. Clause 97 : Requirements in connection with changes to existing EPB arrangements Amendments 194N and 194P not moved. Clause 97 agreed. Clause 98 : Combined authorities and their areas Amendments 194PA to 194T not moved. Clause 98 agreed. Clause 99 : Constitution and functions: transport Debate on whether Clause 99 should stand part of the Bill.