Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

All I can say is that if we did not have a list in the first place, we would certainly spend a long time discussing why we did not have one and what should be on such a list. However, I take the point raised in all the questions that have been asked. Members of the Committee are right to ask them and I am sorry if I exhibited an unusual burst of bad temper when responding to previous amendments. I shall try to be nicer in this response. I was asked why there are two lists. That question is worth asking and I hope that noble Lords will understand the answer. The first list, in paragraphs (b) to (i) of Clause 2(2), comprises essentially the universal bodies which exist in respect of every area. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly said that the second list was generated by the first. The second list is produced by Clause 2(2)(a). That makes it clear that bodies in the second list are included only where they exist in respect of the local area. For example, not every area has a parish council, so that applies only to a principal council that has one or more parishes in the area. The lists are related but they need to be included to cover both the universal and the specific instances. The noble Lord asked me why the lists are as they are. That was a very interesting debate. I do not want to reiterate everything that I said in the previous debate. However, in conjunction with the LGA and the connected authorities, we tried to ensure that we took the 2007 Act and the duty to involve people as our starting point. Indeed, we spent a lot of time debating the list set out in that legislation by considering who would cover the main services that are designed and developed in close partnership with local authorities and those services that would benefit from closer engagement with and wider representation from local people. There was already evidence that democratic arrangements could be expanded by people being more widely represented and thus able to wield more influence. While I shall not go back to the principal debate, this is all about increasing the ability of local people to get involved in and be more broadly represented on bodies, so that they can become more influential in shaping and improving services. We thought hard about the lists. The noble Lord mentioned Elevate as an example. He is quite right to say that that body has an enormous influence on the future of his area. The arrangements in place in other housing market renewal partnerships are fundamental to what areas will look like in future years. Elevate comes within the notion of partnership and is another example of the complexity of the issue. I hope that noble Lords are not cynical about this because, when we prompt them to do so through guidance, local authorities will be able to include in the range of bodies covered by this duty those that are not specifically set out in the Bill. They will differ around the country because, although we have nine HMR areas, in other parts of the country there are different sorts of partnerships working in different ways. The problem with lists, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, is that we can become involved in an exercise of ““granulation””—or whatever the word is—because local authorities and local circumstances differ. Therefore, we have to be careful in our approach. All public bodies have been included and, as I have said, we have sought to ensure that they are connected authorities which have links with the democratic arrangements of local authorities that involve local people or their representatives—of course, that covers FE colleges. That is the principle that we are following. The amendments in this group are mainly prompts for debate, but some suggest removing bodies from the list of connected authorities, while others seek additions. I shall address Amendment 33 first. During the passage of the Bill last year, we had wonderfully thorough debates about the Homes and Communities Agency. It has been included in the list to raise the profile of its work and its significant powers to affect the supply and quality of social housing and thus the feel of local neighbourhoods. We want to ensure that local people know how the agency works and learn about its processes in relation to local authorities. There is joint working through investment programmes and the planning of the provision of housing. Putting this duty on the agency—one that it has itself sought and which local authorities have supported because it is such an important influence on the future shape of a local area—provides the means by which local communities can seek information on the governance, budget and decision-making arrangements of the agency in its work in their area. We expect the HCA to work closely with local communities; indeed, the chief executive, Bob Kerslake, has often spoken about how he wants to relate to local communities and the role that he sees for the agency in that form of conversation. We trust local authorities to take a sensible approach. I turn now to further education and the important questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. As she said, the governing bodies of these institutions include community representatives. In the main, FE colleges take students from their local areas and the fundamental point once again is that we want these bodies to be as widely representative of their communities as possible. That starts with asking people whether they understand the arrangements for how representatives are selected to serve on these bodies and know what opportunities exist for them to become involved. We hope that we have a definition of democratic arrangements that is restricted to those that involve local people but which is broad enough to cover formal and informal engagement. I was asked about joint boards and joint committees—for example, we might be talking about the highways and transportation local joint committees or the joint boards established under the public health Acts. Those are already covered by the duty set out in Clause 1(1). We will make that clear in guidance. When we come to the academy schools, I understand the intention of noble Lord. I am perfectly prepared to respond to as much teasing as possible. These are certainly educational institutions and they have governing bodies. From the very beginning, they were constructed with a different status and constitution. They are independently managed, state-funded schools. Their executive leadership is not with a public body but with a private sponsor. We have had this debate about academies since they were set up; indeed, we have had it in relation to many different pieces of legislation. As such, and in line with that general approach, we are not putting academies in the Bill, because it would be inconsistent to do so. Again, it is up to local authorities. If they want to work with academies and explore their arrangements for representation and the way in which local people might be able to get more involved in governance, they are free to do so. On the regional development agencies—I am in danger of repeating myself—we have tried to put in bodies that are of direct relevance to local bodies, without having an unwieldy list of regional bodies, because of the burden. Again, if local authorities want to work with the RDAs in this sense, when they have high investment in local regeneration projects, there is absolutely no reason why they should not do so. In fact, when we discuss the duty to involve and the way in which that will be extended to RDAs and other bodies, there is another argument for treating them slightly differently. Again, we should trust local authorities to involve and include the people whom they think are most relevant in terms of their area and whether they fit the criteria. If more people knew how these authorities worked—how their governance worked—they would want to get involved and one would have more diverse representation and closer connection with what the local community looks and feels like.