Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her introduction to the Bill. I fear that that may be one of the only polite things that I have to say and I am not happy to be in that situation. I am sorry that she is landed with such a Bill, which we on these Benches see as largely unnecessary, in parts offensive to local government and a waste of the time of Parliament and, more important, of organisations outside Parliament, including the local authorities. In their briefing pack, the Government in part justify the Bill by their belief in subsidiarity. As my noble friend Lord Tope explained last week, subsidiarity is something to which we subscribe enthusiastically. The briefing pack states that, "““decisions can be taken at the right level, by those who are closest to the issues affecting places and with the full involvement of local people and partners””." At the end of her speech, the Minister expressed her confidence in local government. I have to say that it is a colossal cheek that the UK Government, not having been notable enthusiasts in practice for the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which enshrines what its title suggests, are promoting an amendment to the charter that would place a duty on local authorities to promote democratic understanding and participation. Let us get our own house in order first. It is not that we do not support those principles, but is legislation really required to enable local authorities to do pretty much all that they will be required to do, or is the truth that central government are looking to control the ““how”” as well as the ““what”” and to insert the Secretary of State or another relevant national authority by means of orders or guidance? I detect another agenda: a move towards the uniformity of large unitary authorities imposed from the centre. I refer, for example, to the way in which multi-area agreements are dealt with; again it is a question of ““how””, not ““what””. That is the point; it is quite distinct from local authorities and communities working these matters out for themselves. Another part of the agenda is that there is a move not just to an overarching but to an overwhelming role for leaders. We do not necessarily argue against unitaries per se, but I must ask whether they are moving in a different direction from that which Clause 1 suggests is the Government’s objective. My noble friend Lady Maddock, who hopes to take part in Committee, although she cannot stay for the whole of the debate today, talks powerfully about the reduction in the number of councillors in her area of Northumberland from more than 300 to 67 as a result of reorganisation. That will not do much to promote understanding and opportunities for input. Some people might dismiss the kind of anecdotes that councillors pick up from meeting people every day in their local areas, but it does an awful lot to keep councillors on their toes when they know that they are likely to be collared in a village street in a rural area or in a supermarket in an urban area, in which residents know and recognise their local councillor and feel that they can collar them by the cereals counter or whatever. Why is it necessary to impose systems for petitions by defining what is a valid petition, time limits for dealing with them and lists of appropriate actions that can be taken in response? Any councillor and council with any nous, even the most cynical and uncaring, will know that for electoral reasons at the very least they need to cater for petitions. Most councillors know that the best way to take an issue forward is often to encourage or to instigate a petition. Given the considerable campaigning experience on these Benches, I did wonder about getting up a petition against much of this Bill. The noble Baroness referred to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act in involving local people and ensuring that councils take up issues raised by the public. She describes the provisions in this Bill as taking forward that programme. It seems that we have another example of the Government not seeing how something works. It cannot be that last year’s legislation has been tested and found wanting; it was only enacted last year. There will be a duty on local authorities to explain the governance of decision-making. The problem is that that keeps changing. I hope that the Government did not spend too much on the research that revealed that there is little knowledge among the public of the tiers of governance; many noble Lords will confirm that without research. The problems are real but we part company with the Government on whether legislation is the answer. One legislative response on the issue of involvement might have been to revise the Widdicombe rules, which restrict political activity. With regard to extending the role of overview and scrutiny, I appreciate the frustrations of the restrictions of that role, but ensuring public debate can be a powerful tool, which might well be applied beyond the local authority and PCTs. Public bodies, more than the designated local area agreement partners, could hold question times, organise webcasts and have joint scrutiny arrangements. All of this would go some way towards addressing the deficits in accountability and involvement. These are two aspects of democracy that we see as inseparable. I agree with the Government and with the analysis of the Centre for Public Scrutiny—I declare an interest as a member of its advisory board; I have been associated with the body from the beginning—that the scrutiny function requires officer support and that scrutiny as a career path for officers and members requires support. I am uncomfortable, however, with the proposal to make the scrutiny officer one of a tiny handful of statutory posts. Scrutiny is qualitatively different from, for instance, children’s services and finance, which attract those designations. It is certainly the case that scrutiny requires dedicated support. Officers who spend the morning advising the executive and the afternoon advising the scrutineers on the same subject are in an impossible position. Is this not a matter for the authority itself? Of course, we believe in evolution on a local basis. Our different approach also shows in regional matters. Leaders’ boards are not the answer to the democratic deficit in the regional development agencies. Of course let us have contact between the local authorities and the RDAs; regular contact, consultation and working together are all important, but that is a different issue. The leaders’ boards seem to have the potential to turn into exclusive clubs where the big authorities exclude the smaller and where there is no or little opposition voice. These are not the priorities of any leader, who naturally has the concern of his particular local authority at the front of his mind. The knock-on effect is to exclude the non-leaders back at home. Is this part of a programme of assigning to the RDAs expanding influence that is unscrutinised? We are certainly heading for debates on the context and priorities of regional strategies, which are to set out, "““policies in relation to sustainable economic growth””." Should we not be aiming to integrate those with spatial strategies that have policies for all aspects of sustainable development, including tackling the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change? I have already talked in the Chamber this week about how sustainability is not static. Society changes and its knowledge and aspirations change. We will use the opportunity provided by the Bill to revisit the legislation establishing regional development agencies. As I recall, one of the purposes of an RDA is to, "““contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area””." That was 10 years ago, and the thinking has moved on. The Minister’s justification of the single strategy seemed precisely to support our revisiting that purpose. We appreciate the importance of economic concerns but should there really be a duty to prepare an economic assessment? Would it not be better to give a local authority space to prepare one rather than worry about whether it is meeting the Secretary of State’s requirements? No doubt local authorities do consult their partner authorities, but what does this requirement add if there is no duty on the partners to co-operate? Economic prosperity boards are, I understand, to be voluntary and the legislation is enabling, so why is it necessary to include them in the Bill, unless it is to ensure that the pattern, as expressed in the five conditions set out in the Bill, to the Government’s design is the one that takes effect? Incidentally, I note that the CBI is distinctly underwhelmed and I am very much aware of concerns about achieving housing development in the new structure. I have not enjoyed making a bad-tempered and rather sour speech. I know that I have not covered everything—for example, I have not dealt with the tenant’s voice. Those of us who are, to use a phrase used in a different context two days ago, survivors of the Housing and Regeneration Bill anticipated this coming and we welcome it. I have not dealt with areas that are more technical than political, but let no one characterise us in our attitude to the Bill as being against democracy just because democracy is part of the title. On Monday, in the Second Reading debate on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, my noble friend Lord Tyler, in saying that we would ““rigorously scrutinise”” the Bill, conflated those words to promise that we would ““rigorise”” it. We will rigorise this Bill as well. We will do so as far as we are able, but I have to say that the organisation of business in your Lordships’ House will not facilitate that. From these Benches, we alerted the Government as soon as we realised that this Bill and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill would be dealt with concurrently. However, we did not anticipate that that would have to mean exact concurrency. As we see it, there is a considerable overlap in the interests of noble Lords in both Bills. Certainly that is the case from these Benches but I do not believe that it affects the Liberal Democrat Benches alone. Yet the Forthcoming Business indicates that on at least two days the Committee stages will coincide. It is not apparent to us that this is because of urgency or because of a lack of other business. There is real anger and frustration on these Benches, because we are keen to contribute and play a full part in both Bills. As I said, I do not suggest for a moment that this problem is confined to these Benches. We will return to this issue in due course and we will also rigorise the Bill.