Localism Bill

That is presumably why there are refugees in your Lordships' House. My amendments are designed slightly to strengthen and clarify the position in respect of those who should be included in the list. The first relates to Clause 76(2)(b)(iii), which speaks of ““a person specified””. I simply suggest that we make that ““person or persons””, because it is clear that an individual is not the only, or indeed the likeliest, source of a nomination. Amendment 136BZB would then add a qualification to make that person or persons, "““resident and eligible to vote in local elections of the relevant authority””." Again, it is necessary to tie in the individual making a nomination to the local community. Amendment 136BZC would give ““the local authority”” the right to make a nomination as well. That seems sensible and should be no problem to the Government. However, an issue arises in that respect, and in other respects in this part of the Bill, about the definition of a local authority. There is a clause in the Bill which sets out the hierarchy of local authorities, counties and so on. There is also, I believe—I cannot for the moment identify it—a provision in the Bill which requires local authorities to co-operate on issues across the Bill. That leaves the question, with which the Minister might help us, of which authority in a two-tier area has the duty to compile the lists or whether it is both. Both levels of authority might have an interest, or one might have an interest and another not, in the particular function for which a nomination is made. For example, there might be some functions—recreation and so on—where a district councillor would have an interest; there might be others, in the realm, let us say, of social services where a county authority would be more likely to have an interest. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to dictate, or even indicate, which of the two authorities should make the list, whether there should be a combined list or how it might operate in practice. It would be unfortunate, to pick up the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord True, concerns about the cost, if both authorities were obliged to maintain lists and staff up accordingly. I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with these matters immediately, but could they be looked at and clarified worked through, perhaps in consultation with the Local Government Association? The vague ““duty to co-operate””, a phrase to which we will return when we come on to the planning section of the Bill, does not really take us very far.