Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

We are excellent and improving strongly. There is nothing better than that. That is for the London Borough of Sutton, and I thank the noble Lord for the prompt. However, in the current climate and, more particularly, in the climate in which local authorities are heading in the next year or two, it will always be desirable to seek improvement, but I question whether that is realistic and whether including that in the Bill recognises the reality of matters as they are. Amendment 198G in this little group refers to Clause 120, which is detailed about targets and the Secretary of State's involvement. If they are to be voluntary and locally based, why do we need such a degree of involvement from the Secretary of State? Clause 120 deals with provisions for submission to the Secretary of State, but it does not actually say that the Secretary of State's approval is required or under what terms the Secretary of State may decide not to give her or his approval. I assume that if an agreement is required to be submitted to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will say something about it, but perhaps they just receive it for their greater education and benefit. I am sure that the Minister can clarify that. Amendment 197D relates to Clause 117. We have discussed economic prosperity boards for some considerable time and expressed our misgivings, to put it no more strongly, that they are in effect quasi-local authorities. Sooner or later that is what they will turn into. Then we get to Clause 117, which has the heading "Local authorities" and states that, ""the following is a local authority for the purposes of this Part"—" I accept that qualification—and an economic prosperity board is specified in paragraph (f) as a local authority. That reinforces the misgivings that we expressed on an earlier part of the Bill. Amendment 198A requires consultation of all the local authorities in an MAA area. At the moment, the Bill refers to consultation with representatives of local government—I assume that in England that is intended to be the LGA; is that correct?—and others considered appropriate. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain more fully what might be considered appropriate. We would feel reassured if it said in the Bill that all local authorities in an MAA area would explicitly be consulted. Amendments 198B, 198E, 198F and 198H are fairly self-explanatory. We suggest that the Secretary of State should be invited, not directed. That is clear. Amendment 198C allows local authorities to request a direction, or an invitation, from an initial MAA to extend it to a revision of an MAA. That is desirable. To be honest, I struggled a little with Amendment 198D, but again it is based on concerns expressed throughout our discussions about the position of non-unitary district councils, which continue to seem to be rather the poor relation in all this. Amendments 198J and 198K leave out statutory requirements for what should and must be a voluntary agreement. If it is a voluntary agreement, maybe there should not be enforced co-operation. That is a long list of amendments, each one of which deserved a fuller explanation, but in view of the time constraints that we are all under, I beg to move Amendment 197B. I look forward to the Minister’s response.