Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I do not know whether I classify myself as a teeny-bopper in the House of Lords but I am very much behind Clause 139. I, too, have been committed to and involved in promoting the concept of public involvement, particularly in health. Sometimes listening to the noble Lord’s interpretation of the Bill, I wonder whether we are reading the same document. Let me speak to the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a particular concern about the voluntary sector and I hope that my comments will go some way to providing her and the voluntary sector with some reassurance. Amendments Nos. 225E and 225EA would amend Section 3(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, which states that authorities must consult representatives of persons who pay local taxes, levies or business rates, those who use council services and anybody else with an interest in best value. This includes citizens, electors, residents and local councillors. These amendments would go beyond this and make it mandatory for local authorities to consult all people and councillors. We believe that it is unrealistic to expect local authorities to involve all local people. Such a duty would be hugely burdensome in time and money. Also, this amendment would only cover how an authority consults on its duty of best value. The new duty we are proposing in Clause 139 goes much wider. The clause places a new duty on best value authorities in England, except police authorities. It is a very significant plank of this legislation. It requires authorities to inform, consult and/or involve representatives of local persons in the exercise of the authority’s functions as appropriate. By ““representatives of local persons”” we mean that an authority must involve a cross-section of the population affected by or interested in a particular service. Who the authority involves will vary according to the type of authority, policy or service area. However, the current drafting means authorities will be required to consider when and how local councillors, community spokespeople and—of importance to this discussion—voluntary groups should be engaged. The statutory guidance will reinforce this message. Noble Lords will have received a statement of intent setting out the scope of the statutory guidance with a clear expectation that authorities should engage local voluntary groups and community leaders where appropriate, as well as reaching out to individual citizens. The guidance will also emphasise the voluntary sector and community leaders’ role in advocating on behalf of the most vulnerable and marginalised in society—an extremely key area—and helping such groups to engage. However, it would not be right to require authorities to involve specific groups such as voluntary and community organisations in every given circumstance. There may be instances where it would be inappropriate to involve certain groups and we should give authorities the power to make this decision based on the needs and characteristics of their local area. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me to explain further the question of exemptions and I will do my best to help her. Amendments Nos. 225F and 225G affect the Secretary of State’s ability to create exemptions from the duty to involve. The first amendment would remove the order-making power and the second would extend the scope of this power by removing the constraints placed upon the extent of the order. The Secretary of State may need to provide clarity on when and how authorities should not involve citizens and communities over and above what can be achieved with guidance. This provision ensures that there can be a clear answer to whether a matter is outside the scope of the duty. Without the provision, the scope could be left unclear or left to the courts to decide. It is envisaged that this exemption would only rarely be used. For example, there could be an exemption under the new duty. In the new world, when this power comes into force, you could have a situation where the duty creates an expectation that individual or personal matters are seen as an area for consultation, such as in adoption cases or staff disciplinary proceedings. It is important that if there is any ambiguity in an area involving a matter of personal or individual concern, the Secretary of State is able to create an exemption. We can imagine a situation where a body wanted to consult the community on the development of the policy around an issue like adoption, but we would not want any involvement of individuals in the execution of that policy. It is also possible that in the future, the functions of individual best value authorities might change, and therefore it may become appropriate to exempt those authorities or some of their functions from the duty. However, as I have said, it is expected that this provision would be very rarely used. I turn briefly to the meaning and importance of Clauses 138 and 139. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was very sceptical, although I see them as forming an important, interrelated part of the Bill. Clause 138 is needed because statutory guidance on best value is provided using the powers under Sections 3(4), 5(5) and 6(4) of the 1999 Act. With the repeal of Sections 5 and 6 of the 1999 Act, only the power to issue guidance on how authorities consult representatives of local people will remain, and we believe that that is far too narrow. Clause 138 widens the scope of guidance by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance about a broader range of matters related to how authorities should fulfil their general duty of best value. Clause 139 is needed to ensure that people across the country are given the opportunity to have their say and get involved in local services and policies. Evidence from both the UK and overseas shows that where citizens and communities are involved, services improve and better reflect the needs of local users, resulting in higher levels of user satisfaction. However, Comprehensive Performance Assessment 2006 found that while, "““council approaches to consultation and engagement are at different stages of development … councils need to do more to engage greater involvement of users in … services””." It also found that, "““engaging and supporting diverse communities is less well developed””." So not everything is completely bright and rosy in the garden and we need to do more. This is a very important clause in that. The duty also provides an important counterbalance to the reduction in top-down controls which this Bill is also all about in the new performance framework. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.