Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall speak also to Amendments 22, 59 and 60. The first group of amendments removes the duty on local councils to promote understanding of their functions and democratic arrangements and those of connected bodies. Instead it replaces that duty with a responsibility to note the desirability of doing so. That may seem like a trivial drafting point, but I believe that it sums up what is wrong with the Bill and how the Government’s approach differs from ours. Chapter 1 is, at first glance, a fairly anodyne requirement to promote understanding and awareness of a local authority’s function. I expect that the Minister will tell the Committee that those duties are required to enshrine good practice in statute, but I argue that it is emblematic of the way in which the Government seem to be operating. In the Bill we have new duties imposed by central government but they have no real practical meaning; there is nothing substantive in the provisions. I am sure that most, if not all, local authorities promote democracy in some way or another. It is in their interests to do so. Quite simply, there is no need for central government to get involved and to direct how local authorities communicate with their populaces. It suggests to me that the Government wish to be seen to be doing something—anything—but cannot really come up with anything fresh or new, so are resorting to tinkering and meddling. The Minister may well have been taken aback by the sheer number of amendments which have been tabled to this part of the Bill, which perhaps indicates a feeling in the Committee that much of the Bill is unnecessary and unwarranted. I have tabled Amendments 1, 22, 59 and 60, to Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, as a means to get discussion going on this topic. The Minister will be glad to hear that I have not sought to strike out the clauses altogether. The sentiment that local authorities should promote understanding and awareness of their own arrangements and those of bodies which have an impact on the everyday lives of the people is not a difficult one to agree with. We on these Benches agree that local people should be able to access information readily about the services which they use and the authorities which provide them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, summed up the position neatly at Second Reading when she said that failing to support the Bill should not be seen as a refusal to support democracy simply, "““because democracy is part of the Title””.—[Official Report, 17/12/08; col. 862.]" There is no reason for it to be a duty. That is simply government posturing, saying, ““Look, we’re improving local services because it says so in this piece of legislation””. Democratic engagement among local people will be boosted only when they feel that local democracy has a relevance to their lives. That means giving them a chance to exercise influence over, for example, planning law, waste management, the care they receive from local health boards or the quality of their children’s education. Only when that point is reached, when decisions are not taken by unaccountable quangos and people feel that their local representatives can make a real difference to their lives, can the Government say that they have successfully promoted local democratic arrangements. Until the Government start to act on their rhetoric, the duties in the Bill remain little more than that. The only practical effect is likely to be a new set of leaflets, dutifully produced to fulfil the obligations in the clauses and left standing in the foyers of town halls across the country. Unless the Government are willing to trust local authorities to exercise control over their functions and those of connected authorities, the duties in Clauses 1 to 4 are pointless—and pointless duties should not be enshrined in legislation. I beg to move.