Again, this has been a very important debate and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. May I say how pleased I am to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has joined us, and how much I appreciated working with him for so long? I am sure he will enjoy his Back-Bench career, being able to get involved in some of the things he was not able to before. It is very nice to see him taking part in the Committee.
This group of amendments focuses on the scope of the duties in Clauses 1 and 2. They seek to probe exactly what kinds of information councils should be providing. I am grateful for the opportunity to explore some of those issues, which have been very well raised for their salience.
The intent behind the amendments is, clearly, to ensure that the scope of the clauses is as comprehensive as is appropriate. I am happy to explain how I think the existing clauses already cover what noble Lords want to see. I shall do that very briefly, as I do not want to repeat anything that I said in the long debate that we have just had.
The intent behind Clauses 1 and 2, and the text, make it clear that, based on all the evidence that I have brought forward, we believe it is important for people to be genuinely and not just nominally involved in decision-making. That is why we have been so intent in our community empowerment White Paper on the need to shift power, influence and responsibility, and give communities more purchase on that. There is a long history behind that; the Councillors Commission showed that there is a fundamental failure of communication between most local councils in explaining how their councils work and what they are responsible for—and I thought that the example of Pendle was extremely telling—as well as who takes the decisions, at what level and how they are taken. What are the processes? Is it a committee structure or a small sub-group, and is it possible to get into these meetings? How can decisions be changed? Those are clearly among the most insuperable barriers to people becoming more involved.
We know that people want to know these things and think that there should be involvement. I saw some extremely interesting new polling from Ipsos MORI just last week, demonstrating the sheer enthusiasm that people have for getting involved. I do not think that it has been published yet, but it was extremely graphic about the real interest there is in local issues and involvement. That is not something that we are struggling with alone in Britain. The Councillors Commission reviewed international evidence. I was in Australia over Christmas and spent a morning—which I did not expect—talking to councillors in New South Wales about their attempt to try to re-engage better with local communities.
The only people who can make this happen are councillors. They have new forms of access to information that have completely revolutionised the way in which they communicate with local people. But where access is denied, people are being left out of the loop. Increasing and improving information on what they do, how and why is the business of this Bill and of local councillors.
Let us begin with the information that can and should be made available. I pay tribute to the many excellent councillors who are doing their best, but we need to ensure that in ““democratic arrangements”” we have all the elements necessary to make the difference as regards what people know and how they can use the information. On Amendment 77, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that it is not essential to have the provision in lines 23 to 25. It was merely intended to be helpful and to put all the definitions together in the same place. If he will leave the matter with me, I will see whether there is a point to be addressed. I can assure him that I am game for anything that can shorten the Bill.
I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wanted to achieve in Amendments 4, 6, 13, 26 and 28. I assure him that the scope of the definition in subsection (3), which defines ““democratic arrangements”” as, "““arrangements for members of the public to participate in, or influence, the making of decisions””,"
already meets his intentions. It will certainly mean that councils have to act to increase public knowledge and understanding of how public bodies approach and make decisions; to make it clear who is making which decisions on behalf of the public; and the way in which people can get involved. By requiring councillors to explain how people can get involved in the decision-making process, it must necessarily involve an explanation of what the processes are and who takes which type of decision. The provisions also specifically require councillors to explain their role—what is involved in being a councillor—and the functions of the council. Departing from my brief, I think that subsection (1)(b), relates also to the decisions taken by a principal local authority and the way in which it takes them.
Amendments 26 and 28 seek to ensure that councillors explain what kind of decision-making arrangements a connected authority has. That, too, is covered by the general set of definitions, but I shall say more about that on Amendment 25. I have to advise the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that some of the amendments may have the unintended consequence of widening the duty of explanation for areas which are inappropriate. The amendment seems to suggest that the council will have to explain its mechanisms for all types of decision-making, not just those of a policy nature which affect the public. Our policy is limited to the types of decision that, under Clause 1(3), fit under the definition, "““arrangements for members of the public to participate in, or influence, the making of decisions””."
When you broaden those types, you can bring in decisions which may be commercially sensitive or deal with disciplinary actions. We must therefore be extremely careful to draw that provision as specifically as possible. We do not want to catch a vast number of everyday decisions; for example, when to send out the gritting lorries.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 January 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c70-1GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:12:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519492
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519492
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519492