Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

That was an excellent start to our discussions on the Bill. I welcome a new cast in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. It is very nice to see him on the Front Bench alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. I am sorry that we do not have the pleasure of seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, today, and I hope that she is better by Wednesday. I thank all Members of the Committee who took part in that debate. The range of contributions was wide and it was important to expose complex issues, such as what we mean by ““participation”” and ““influence””. I will not apologise for the fact that my speaking note is rather long, because I, too, want to expose some of those issues. I am very grateful for the support of my noble friends and for their challenging questions on what was said by both opposition parties. I was grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Best on where local government organisations stand. It was salutary to hear that. However, I am disappointed because I know that the accumulated weight of experience and wisdom around the Committee, particularly on the opposition Benches, does not make for great understanding of the intentions behind the Bill, which we have tried to express. There is a definite consensus around the Committee that these provisions are worth making but that it is a question of how we make them and how we balance the generally enabling framework that we want to create with the concern about some of the detail. My noble friend Lord Borrie was right to call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to account for his response to the two sets of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said that this is not a trivial drafting point, and indeed it is not. Amendments 2, 23 and 6 and Amendments 1, 22, 59 and 60 are different. The latter group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is destructive. The noble Baroness said that she would be convinced when local people felt local government to be relevant. I would argue that that is exactly the point of this clause and this Bill. However, in order to perceive something as relevant, you have to have the information that enables you to understand how those decisions that affect your lives are made and what you can do about them. Ultimately, we are not only about enabling people to engage more directly and influentially with local government, but about revitalising the base of local democracy and the services on which people depend. This is not an emblematic Bill as the noble Baroness suggests. It is not insubstantial. It addresses serious issues and ways of doing things. We have the balance right. The degree of detail—the how—will be left to local authorities. This clause and subsequent clauses create the framework to build on the best and let local authorities decide how they can make this work effectively in their local community for local people. We do not agree that there is no need for a duty on local authorities to promote democracy, that it is unnecessary and onerous or that they are already able to do so. I shall explain why on the basis of the evidence. I have been grateful for this early discussion of the complexity that has emerged in local government in response to the many different challenges over the past decade, not least in the ways of doing things and emerging issues such as climate change and how to work with the third sector in the delivery of services. We have created a much more complex and dynamic landscape. The most telling point in this debate was made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, when he said that he does not understand and cannot draw a map of his own local authority’s decision-making structures.