Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

We have that amendment in the group, together with Amendments 190A and 191A. I apologise to the Committee; I have a prior commitment that means that I am not able to stay for long this afternoon. I will read every word in Hansard, and will read between the lines as well. From this side of the Committee, we had made clear our opposition to economic prosperity boards for reasons of democracy—the transfer of local authority functions to a body that will not consist of directly elected representatives—so I do not want to go through those arguments again. The amendments signal that opposition, but also probe some detail. Our first amendment is Amendment 189A. The transfer of a function to an economic prosperity board would require the consent of the local authority whose function is being transferred. I am aware that the Minister will argue that the transfer will be voluntary, but would like to delve under that a little. What if one local authority in an EPB area is willing to see the transfer but another is not regarding the same function? Clause 86(1) states that the function is, ""exercisable in relation to an area within an EPB’s area to be exercisable by the EPB in relation to the EPB’s area"." Does that mean that the Government would agree to a patchwork, as it were, within the EPB’s area so that different entities exercise the same functions within it? Amendment 190A would provide for functions not just of a local authority but of a regional development agency to be transferred to the EPB. If that were the design of the EPB, I might see a bit more argument for it. The RDAs exercise the functions. I suppose that this is not far away from the noble Baroness’s Amendment 190, which seems to be what is in the Government’s sights in this design. Amendment 191A takes us to Clause 86(2), which provides that an order can be made by the Secretary of State if she, ""considers that the function can appropriately be exercised by the EPB"." My amendment would change that to a function "best" exercised by the EPB. Grammatically, perhaps that should have been "better" exercised; I am not sure. However, the point is to probe what "appropriately" means in that context. Perhaps one knows it when one sees it, but we might not all have the same perceptions. It is important that the Government put it on the record. From a query in a meeting with the Minister a couple of weeks ago she will be aware that this is exercising me, as it were. It is appropriate for the Government to explain what they mean by the drafting.