Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I am interested to hear why the Greater London Authority is to be treated as a connected authority for the purposes of this Bill, rather than a principal authority. The GLA has a very large direct electoral mandate; it has a very large budget and a great deal of influence on how London does its day-to-day business. It has responsibility for the strategic administration of greater London, which it carries out through the work of four bodies—Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire Authority and the London Development Agency—which might in the terminology of this Bill be described as connected authorities. All this would suggest that the GLA is much better placed in the principal authority’s category. The GLA is not an agency of the London boroughs, or a remote quango. It shares local government powers with the boroughs; indeed, it was created to improve co-ordination between those boroughs. It seems odd to describe it in this context as a mere connected authority. Why does the Minister think that the GLA lacks the wherewithal to fulfil the duty to promote understanding of democracy yet that the borough councils are better placed on its behalf? The noble Baroness has probed the meaning of local people quite extensively with these amendments. I agree that it is curious to have made the definition as it is made in the Bill.