Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The Committee should not look so surprised; these amendments are worth accepting. Before I confirm that, I should say that I know that we have had a long journey to get to this point, and we have failed for good reasons—the amendments, the time or the vehicles have not been quite right. However, we have now satisfied all those considerations. I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for thanking officials; when we started, we recognised that there were some knotty legal problems to untangle. I had visions of us having to go back to medieval statute, especially in relation to the Cinque Ports, and trying to unscramble what William himself might have put in statute. In fact, thanks to the cleverness and hard work of our lawyers, all is now satisfied. I am sure that they will be grateful for having that put on record. We gave assurances and sponsored a Private Member’s Bill, and I understood the disappointment that followed that. Noble Lords all around the Committee have spoken of the historic and ceremonial traditions that are so much of what makes this country different, that are of such value to us, and that we cherish. Those traditions need to work in a way that is non-discriminatory, and we face not only historic change but something genuinely important when we think of the scope of our equality legislation and the importance that we attach to that value. I am delighted. I feel I have a vested interest; I shall never be a freewoman, I am sure, but invitation goes out—challenge me to be wrong. The position on the right of succession has been blatantly discriminatory—in many guilds it can be secured only by patrimony—so the provision has the added benefit of helping to ensure that hereditary freemen can continue as part of the active but historic framework of many of our towns and cities. The evidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about how the quality of life for people in Berwick is changing was a telling example of how contemporary the work of freemen, and now freewomen, will be. I am happy to endorse the changes that recognise the position of women in those traditional governance arrangements. As for the changes that the noble Lord puts forward to allow all local authorities to recognise eminent services to their area by the granting of the title of honorary freemen—absolutely. If we are to keep traditions, they must be seen to be fair and to move with the times. We agree that all local authorities should enjoy this right. It enables those who govern a place to recognise the contributions made by local people, and I feel that there cannot be too many opportunities to do that by thanking people publicly and recognising their efforts. Granting honorary freedoms is an important way of recognising service, whether by voluntary groups, residents or people who run tenants’ associations, local youth clubs and the things that make a significant difference to the life of the community. I know that this will be welcomed by local people and local authorities. All district and county councils will be able to confer the title of honorary alderman or, thanks to the noble Lord’s amendments, honorary alderwoman in recognition of service. I am very pleased that we have been able to satisfy the interests of those who work for and value the traditions of the Cinque Ports. I know that many noble Lords will support that. Indeed, I remember the fascinating debates we had on the previous Bill when we discussed what makes the Cinque Ports so special in our national life. This is the right Bill for anything we can do to promote and support the voluntary engagement of local people. It is about improving engagement, local involvement and the governance of towns, villages and cities. I welcome that in all respects. Therefore, with a glad heart, I propose to accept the noble Lord’s amendments.