Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I am not sure whether I have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—I hope not—but the amendment seems to suffer from the examples that he has given several times of local authorities up and down the country doing what the Government want them to do by explaining democratic arrangements and how you can participate, and of the various forms of participation that have not been imposed by the Government but have emerged in local areas to a useful democratic degree. The trouble with the amendment is that the worthwhile desire of the Government to ensure that the best of what goes on goes on throughout all local authorities as far as possible is damaged by the amendment. It suggests that at a whim any particular local authority can amend, "““the list of authorities that are connected to it””," as it pleases. That could mean that up and down the country there could be a diversity of approaches to the obligations placed on local authorities by the early clauses, especially Clause 2. You could have local authorities next door to one another, one of which followed all the best requirements and the best practice—which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, desires—and another could restrict it. Of course, it gives local authorities greater opportunity to do what they want rather than what central government want, but the whole purpose of central government intervening here at all—which I know the noble Lord is not very keen on—is to ensure that best practice covers the whole of the country, not just part of it.