My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in the debate and to the Minister for her response. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was absolutely spot-on to point to the tension between devolution and levelling up. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have felt that tension; we kept coming back to it, because there is an essential tension there. He mentioned the number of funding streams—planning fees, bidding fees, pothole action funds, the towns fund—which are all funds that local areas have to bid for, and they are not a buoyant source of local revenue. They are not renewable: if you want more, you have to go back to government and ask for more. What we actually need are those local revenue-generating sources that would enable that economic regeneration in our own areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested that this might need some sort of a commission to run to in order to demonstrate what you need to do to shift this.
11.15 pm
When I listen to the comments by the Minister, I understand why she is saying what she is saying about what is being done now, but it is almost as if the Government are too close to this and do not realise that all the things that are on offer—such as the devolution deal that you might get—have to be asked for and approved by the Government. It is not about what you want for your local area; it is whether the Government think what you want for your local area is the right thing. It is the same with funding: if you want a funding bid, you have to go to the Government to get that funding approved. It is still a very cap-in-hand approach. My view is that government should give local areas the powers to generate their own funding, open up regional financial institutions to enable that and let us get on with the job. We know what works best for our local areas. I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I am pretty sure we will come back to this on Report.