Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I start by replying to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, as he has raised it twice in Committee. He had the gift of prescience which eluded practically every economist in the western world, eluded every Government and certainly eluded me and my department in the early part of last year. I wish that we were not in this situation and that I had been wrong. However, like everyone else, I used the information at my disposal at the time. It would be extremely nice if we did not have to face up to, battle with and accommodate a serious situation for our economy and our society. However, I leave that aside and address the important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, about the costs and benefits of the duties relating to the promotion of democracy and the requirements in relation to petitions. We think that this measure is sufficiently important; if we did not, we would not be bringing forward the Bill with its new duties. It is important for us to fund those duties, because they will constitute new burdens on local authorities, and for us to do that to the best of our ability. I shall explain why we have arrived at our assessments. I take the point that both my noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made, which was that we are in a different landscape with different challenges facing local authorities. Nevertheless, this is a Bill for the long term. It is about changing a closed culture and trying to ensure that in the next 10 to 20 years local government and local democracy are more fit for purpose, more representative of the people whom they serve and more responsive to the needs of the whole community. Just as in 1902 we created county councils and introduced new, radical structures, local government is evolving.