Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She will have noted in Hansard our good wishes and the many references to her but also the fact that we have progressed at a very gentle pace. These amendments draw attention to a loophole in relation to the provision of information under Clause 5. The clause suspends the duty for local authorities to promote understanding and information if the necessary information has not been made available by the relevant authority that holds that information. If a secondary authority is stubborn or disorganised for any reason, or for any other reason fails to provide the requested information, the duty on the principal local authority simply does not apply. Yet we were told in no uncertain terms by the Minister in our first Committee session that it was vital to have a duty, that we needed a duty and that a less stringent requirement, such as ““have regard to””, would not be sufficient. Anything less than a duty would, we were told, be destructive. If this is so, are we to presume that in circumstances where Clause 5 comes into effect there will be a similarly destructive effect on the operation of the Bill? Do not get me wrong: I understand the need for Clause 5. However, I am not sure that it sits easily with the Government’s protestations that the duty on local authorities is essential. None the less, by drawing in the connected authorities and placing a duty on them to provide information to the principal authority—as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would achieve—we may end up with a series of cross duties. Does the Minister regard that as an appropriate solution to the loophole in relation to the primary duty under Clause 5, or does she believe that it would begin to create an onerous burden on authorities, which she says she is keen to avoid? I am minded to look more enthusiastically on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which would place the onus on national authorities to provide guidance. I realise that I risk sounding like a broken record, for which I must apologise, but I feel that I ought to point out that the difficulty of fulfilling duties becomes less of a problem if we do not impose new duties in the first place. I agree that Clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 gives carte blanche for the appropriate national authority to start meddling. We might ask at this point who the appropriate national authority is. Will it be the Secretary of State? If so, the Executive are reserving to themselves the right to heap instructions on local authorities to which they must have regard. I am not convinced that Clause 6, when considered on top of the duties in Clauses 1 to 4, sits easily with what the Minister told the Committee during our first session, when she denied that the imposition of a duty in this part would be onerous. Having reread her words in Hansard, I note that she was careful not to say explicitly that she would ensure that the duty would be as light a burden on local authorities as possible. However, she said that she did not consider the duty onerous and that the benefit of having it was that it was ““not overly prescriptive””. The Committee is aware that I do not agree with that assessment. The Government’s claims are further undermined by Clause 6, which provides an open door for the Secretary of State, or whatever national authority it may be, to be as prescriptive as he or she likes. Local authorities will have to have regard to all that guidance. We do not—indeed, cannot—know what sort of guidance will be issued in the future, yet we are being asked to accept that the existing duties, plus future guidance, will not be overly prescriptive, a burden on local authorities or onerous. These Benches have trouble accepting that claim.