| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC107
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC107
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC107
Wednesday, 21 January 2009.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Committee (2nd Day)
3.45 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall): I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 2 : Democratic arrangements of connected authorities
24: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) the scope and operation of partnerships and other joint working of the authority (with or without any other authority) with connected authorities including by way of local area agreements as defined by section 106 of Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28) (duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement) or a multi-area agreement as defined in section 116;”
Lord Tope: My noble friend Lady Hamwee is recovering but is not yet recovered enough to be here. Therefore, I rise to move Amendment 24, which is in her name and mine, and I shall speak also to Amendments 27 and 29. Given the nature of the amendments, I should probably declare an interest as a member of the local strategic partnership board in the London Borough of Sutton and as a member of the crime and disorder reduction partnership board in the same borough. Until a few months ago, I was on similar boards in the London Borough of Croydon for seven years as a representative of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
On Monday, we debated under Amendment 5 the nature of partnerships and the extremely important role that partnerships—the LSPs and the CDRPs, but also many other partnerships—now play in the local authority world. They are very much significant and major parts of the local authority landscape now; indeed, “local landscape” is probably a better expression. Yet 15 years ago, they were virtually unknown and they certainly played very little part. I know that the Minister recognises that, because she went to some length in her response on Monday to stress the important role that these partnerships play.
The partnerships are relatively recent developments and they are still little understood by local people—the public. Indeed, I suspect that most members of the public do not even know of their existence, let alone of the very important work that they do. I fear that that
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC108
I know from the clues that we had on Monday that the Minister is likely to say that these partnerships are intended to be included under what is already in the Bill and that reference to them will be included in the guidance that will be forthcoming. I am sure that all of that is right. However, these partnership boards now play a greater role in their own right than any of the constituent members of the boards. Although the local authority may well describe the functions and arrangements of the local police service or the local health service, that is not the same thing as talking about the role of the local strategic partnership board, for example, never mind the other boards that are rather less well known.
The purpose of the amendment is not simply to rely on guidance—guidance is just guidance—but explicitly to put in the Bill our recognition that partnership working and the partnership boards, to which all local authorities now belong, are extremely important to the democratic life of every area of the country. The complexity of the boards and the fact that often they do not meet in public, or certainly not with the same degree of public understanding, make it more important that their functions, operation and arrangements are explained in a way that I suspect does not happen now in many areas.
I believe that this is the most necessary aspect of what this part of the Bill seeks to achieve. Most people think that they understand local authorities; even if they do not fully understand them, at least they are aware of their existence and have some idea of what they do. However, I suspect that the very existence of many of these partnership boards is not known, let alone understood. The Minister may not concede this point today—I am not that optimistic—but I hope that she will agree to think more seriously about how we address these very important partnership arrangements as we consider the Bill.
Amendment 27 is self-explanatory. It would simply add the words “(if any)”, to recognise that some of the bodies that are listed do not have democratic arrangements—that is a simple statement of fact—and by their nature never will have. The amendment proposes a simple addition to the Bill that recognises a reality.
Amendment 29 would allow a principal local authority not to have to duplicate work that may be and probably is already being done by a number of the connected authorities. If those authorities are already explaining their functions and their democratic arrangements, as many of them do, a simple reference to that fact from the principal local authority should be sufficient, to avoid the necessity of repeating the whole lot again. The amendment would make that explicit. I beg to move.
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC109
Baroness Warsi: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is rightly approaching the same point as I raised earlier in the week, albeit from a slightly different angle. I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board his constructive criticism.
Amendment 27 would add a rather scathing caveat in relation to the democratic arrangements of connected authorities. The noble Lord is right to point out that these connected authorities may not have any democratic arrangements, which would make it difficult for the principal authority to promote those arrangements as democratic. I can think of only one justification for the provision, which is, as I suggested before, that the Minister would like the undemocratic nature of these unelected and unaccountable bodies to be fully exposed. If that is not the case, the duty in Clause 2 is nothing more than words. It allows the Government to claim that they are promoting democracy when they are doing nothing very much at all.
Amendment 29 is a sensible consideration. If the connected authorities are already promoting understanding of their functions and arrangements, there is little point in that work being duplicated by a principal authority.
I hope that the Minister will accept that many, if not all, of the amendments today are an attempt to sort out the legislation into a workable and meaningful form. I hope that she will be able to take the Bill away and consider these provisions in that positive light.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): This is the first of four important groups of amendments that seek to make alterations in relation to the list of connected authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggests in Amendment 24 that we include partnerships and other joint working arrangements in the range of information to be provided about connected authorities. He also proposes in Amendment 27 that local authorities should provide information on democratic arrangements only where they exist and in Amendment 29 that local authorities should take into account the existing efforts of these bodies to promote themselves and their democratic arrangements.
Here is an opportunity to explain briefly and to put on the record what we seek to do in Clause 2, which is to require local authorities to provide information about the functions and democratic arrangements of connected authorities that provide or shape public services in the area. By connected authorities, we mean the police, health, schools, FE colleges and fire and rescue services, among others—all services that are designed and developed in close partnership with the local authorities, even if the local authorities are not finally responsible or accountable for them. They are all services that would benefit from closer engagement with and wider representation from local people.
I pay tribute to the role that the noble Lord has played on LSPs and CDRPs. He also rightly talked about the multi-area agreements. Having observed at close quarters the work of LSPs, I know that they are quite complex bodies. I have seen several of them.
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC110
We have thought hard about what should be on the list of connected authorities and about the task that we are asking of them. I underline the fact that we explained to all the representatives of the bodies named what we are seeking to do. They have been very supportive of the proposal. The bodies on the list, whether we are talking about PCTs or the fire service, know that their work is more effective when it is better understood and when it is supported locally. They are therefore very keen to work with us on this. I also stress that the list does not limit the bodies with which a local authority may choose to work. It is also important to say that that list of public bodies is not the same as the list of those bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate in LAAs. That is deliberate; indeed, it is why they are called connected authorities. They are the bodies with democratic arrangements that involve local people or their representatives.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, was slightly misleading about what we have taken as our defining point. We included a primary care trust because it delivers services to its local communities and takes decisions, but we did not include organisations such as Arts Council England because it is a national body with a regional presence, although it works with and advises local authorities. Above all—noble Lords surely support me in this—we want this duty to be appropriate and not to give local authorities a long list of every public organisation that has an interest in their area. That would be overly burdensome. We have discussed all the arrangements in the list with the Local Government Association, and the list has its support.
Amendment 29 implies that these organisations have their own requirements to produce information on their governance processes. That is right, but the organisations exist across a wide spectrum of places and deliver to very different standards and expectations. It is not always clear how people can find out about some of the services that they receive. How many people know, for example, how to become a school governor or a member of a foundation trust? We are trying to encourage a sensible approach to collecting the information.
Yes, we have committed to use guidance, because that is the proportionate and proper approach. The list in the Bill ensures that we will require local authorities to provide understanding of the connected authorities and their democratic arrangements only where that is relevant to the local authority. If the body has no relevance to the area, we do not expect them to do this. We would not expect any authorities outside East Anglia to provide information about the Broads Authority, for example.
We trust local authorities to take a sensible approach but there is a very important caveat to which I shall come back time and again as we debate these clauses.
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC111
This is new territory for local government and its partners. As I say, that is why we are looking to provide exemplification in statutory guidance. We will work with local government representatives and the connected authorities to ensure that we get the pitch, tone and scope of all that right.
4 pm
We also recognise that we may need to review the list of connected authorities under Clause 2(6) to ensure that it stays relevant and appropriate. That is why we are seeking a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list—we shall come to that on a later amendment—but only after appropriate consultation with local government and the bodies concerned.
Amendment 24 is important. We discussed elements of it when we discussed Amendment 5 in a previous group. We value enormously the role of partnerships and their critical role in shaping public services and amplifying the local voice, not least because so many agencies from the voluntary sector are represented. Where a partnership consists of a local authority and public bodies that are on the connected authorities list, the requirement to provide information about the functions and democratic arrangements of the council and connected authorities will ensure that information about the partnership will also be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, anticipated my response. It will be covered and we will make that clear in guidance.
We recognise that these are important issues. They are part of an evolving local landscape. There are problems about definition, but I shall think about the argument that the noble Lord put forward and ask officials to wrestle further with this. I cannot make any commitments because this is a difficult legal area, but I shall take the matter away and think about its implications and how best we might approach it. However, I cannot make any promises because I genuinely do not know whether the approach that is suggested is achievable.
As regards Amendment 27, I reiterate what I have said. I appreciate the intent but the bodies on the list of connected authorities all have some form of democratic arrangement based on our broad definition. As I have made clear, we expect local authorities to interpret these duties intelligently.
Amendment 29 proposes that local authorities may consider the extent to which a connected authority promotes understanding of these matters. There is a reasonable challenge here to prevent duplication. For example, foundation hospitals take seriously the duty to provide information about themselves. We want local authorities to create a single point of contact and we want to encourage joint working. We want to bring different people into these bodies, which serve a diverse public. Therefore, putting information in one place opens up opportunities to people that they may not have at the moment. We shall use guidance to promote a sensible and pragmatic approach. I hope that, on that basis, the Committee will be satisfied that we have met most of these possibilities.
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC112
Baroness Maddock: I am at a loss. I cannot agree that all these bodies have democratic arrangements. Where is the democratic arrangement in a primary care trust? I do not see it. As regards the argument that local strategic partnerships are distant from local authorities, nothing could be further from the truth. The local strategic partnership in Berwick produces plans which are then adopted by the council. Indeed, since these partnerships have been set up, it has become clear that unless you have extremely close working between local councils and local strategic partnerships, things do not work. The noble Baroness is right in the sense that the partnerships do not have very good democratic processes. In fact, I was absolutely appalled that an election to our local strategic partnership in Berwick was carried out through the local paper and people could be nominated to be chair of it through that means. Therefore, she is right in that respect. However, my noble friend has a good point and I hope that the Minister and her department will look carefully at the definition that they have given this afternoon, which I do not think holds water.
Baroness Andrews: I am happy to write a detailed letter explaining the democratic arrangements as they are interpreted for each of the bodies set out in subsection (2). For example, strategic health authorities, which manage the local NHS, are a key link between the Department of Health and the rest of the local health arrangements. They work with local authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees and thus have a democratic link with them. Since April 2003, SHAs have been obliged to consult O&S committees. The DoH asked that SHAs be included along with PCTs, and we have responded to that request. PCTs have trust boards—
Lord Greaves: My noble friend referred to primary care trusts as well as strategic health authorities. Can the noble Baroness tell us who appoints the members of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts?
Baroness Andrews: Appointments to PCTs are made by the Secretary of State; the appointments are of local people on the advice of local authorities. I would ask this: why should not this information be available to local people and why should local people not be able to put themselves forward? The noble Baroness has already said that some local authority arrangements, such as with PCTs, are in fact not sufficient or working well. I am equally at a loss to understand why the party opposite is hostile to our efforts in trying to open up opportunities for local people to take part. It is no good the noble Baroness shaking her head, because we need this on the record. As I have said, I am happy to write a detailed letter explaining how these arrangements work and should be improved.
Baroness Maddock: I am not hostile to these things being included, but I am hostile to the interpretation. If the Government are going to include these important things, why are other elements that are actually quite important outwith the list? I understand that the noble Baroness will include them in guidance, but there seems to be a sort of hierarchy here. Our question
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC113
Baroness Andrews: I have made two commitments. I will write to the noble Baroness and copy to all interested parties an explanation of the democratic arrangements as we interpret them in relation to the bodies that we have identified, along with the criteria that we have used. I will also consider again the partnership issue and see whether we can deal with it in some other way.
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for that reply, although at times I think that we were a little at cross purposes. We are not hostile to these arrangements. Indeed, we welcome greater understanding of all these arrangements—that is the motivation behind the amendments.
I am surprised, to be frank, that what I thought was the mildest amendment in the group, which seeks only to add the words “(if any)”, has created the most heat. Whether one likes it or not, it is a given that a number of the bodies listed simply do not have democratic arrangements in the sense that I would understand the phrase. Whether they should or should not have them can be debated another time, but in my opinion they do not. All that this tiny amendment sought to do was to recognise the reality, whether one likes it or not. I do not know why it has created so much heat. I am grateful to the Minister for her offer and I look forward with enormous interest to hearing about the democratic arrangements for each of the bodies in the list.
Before the noble Baroness writes, perhaps I may ask her to start with a definition of her understanding of what “democratic arrangements” means. I have to say that appointment by the Secretary of State, whether that is right or wrong, is not what I understand to be a democratic arrangement, certainly in relation to local democracy. We are talking about a Bill to promote local democracy. Whether this is the right way to do it is not the point; the point is that we cannot see how an appointment made by the Secretary of State is part of the local democratic process. However, we can pursue that argument another time.
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment to look at partnerships in her response to our main amendment. Amendment 24 addresses an important issue and I was concerned when she almost compared a primary care trust with the Arts Council. There is no comparison at all. Primary care trusts and the other bodies listed in the clause are to varying extent statutory bodies. The Arts Council, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the entire range of voluntary bodies play an enormously important part in the local community and often in its democratic arrangements. I accept that it is not entirely appropriate to specify them in the Bill and I do not think that I suggested that they should be.
I have concentrated primarily on local strategic partnerships and CDRPs but there are many others; I did not attempt to list them all. The point that I am trying to make is that in a Bill that seeks to promote
21 Jan 2009 : Column GC114
I am sure that the Minister will think seriously about this: if anything needs better promotion and better understanding with regard to local democracy and local governance, it is the role of these partnerships and the agreements that go with them. For the time being, I rest my case that this is an important matter to be listed specifically and separately in Section 2(1), as suggested in the amendment. In anticipation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 25 to 30 not moved.
Lord Greaves: It is inevitable that in a series of amendments on this clause we will have a series of interlinked debates, because they are all, in a sense, about a group of issues that relate to connected authorities—that is, bodies that in the Bill the Government think are sufficiently close to local authorities to require the council to include them when it is producing its documents or whatever to promote understanding.
Amendment 31 is grouped with five other amendments, which are in effect exactly the same amendment to different bits of this part of the Bill. I want to replace the word “person” as a description of connected authorities, or as a requirement to be a connected authority, with the word “body”. The reason for doing that is that “persons” are legal persons: they are corporate bodies, individuals or whatever. For all the reasons that my noble friends have just been talking about with regard to partnerships, which are sometimes not legal persons although sometimes they are, “person” seems to be an inappropriate term. We want to replace it with a neutral term and “body” was the best that I could come up with. If the Government have a better one, that is fine.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |