UK Parliament / Open data

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants to transfer the powers of the Secretary of State to local authorities to make sure that principal local authorities can promote information relating to the democratic arrangements of local organisations which may not be covered by the current list of connected authorities. We recognise that the list may not be comprehensive for all time, but to keep it to those that we know for certain would be relevant for the duty, the Bill allows for additions to the list to be made by the Secretary of State where a clear case has been made for such an addition. It is important to remind ourselves that this duty is about promoting understanding of the democratic arrangements for public bodies set up either to be influenced by citizens, directly or indirectly, or run by lay citizen representatives. It is not designed to cover all conceivable information about public services in general. Before we look at Amendment 51, we should note that this has important links with Amendment 65, which we will debate later in another group. By giving principal authorities the power to add to the list in Clauses 2 and 3 for their respective areas, it could allow principal authorities to impose a duty and significant new burdens on any organisation that they select to provide them with the information they request. As for the aim of Amendment 51 to allow principal authorities to seek and promote information relating to the democratic arrangements of any body operating in their area, as we have heard many times today, it is in their discretion to do this, and they can do so without the Amendment 51. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that. What Amendment 51 would do, however, is to give principal authorities the power to add to the list of connected authorities any public body, which is not defined, and so could include an organisation in the voluntary sector, as long as it receives public funding. That means that the scope of the duty to promote democracy could go beyond what the Bill is intended to cover. Each principal authority could then claim that it has a statutory duty to ask any public service provider that it chooses to supply information on how citizens can participate democratically in their decision-making, even where they are not meant to be set up to facilitate such democratic input. For example, organisations such as inspectorates provide a valuable public service, but to be independent in their assessment means that their decisions are not open to public influence. There will also be voluntary organisations which, although they are in receipt of public funding, are run by a group of volunteer trustees not necessarily elected from the local area. The noble Lord is right to suggest that lottery funding contributes significantly to some bodies providing publicly funded services. However, in the context of the Bill, it is unclear why receiving public funding should mean that a body should then be susceptible to a local authority requiring it to provide information on its democratic arrangements. The Bill’s aim is to set out public bodies which have a clear remit in facilitating democratic participation in their decision-making and ensure that they share that information with the relevant local authority for it to promote to local people. It is not its aim, however, to include those without such a remit. Without a clear rationale for what bodies other than those listed in the Bill should also be included as connected authorities, there is a real risk that many public and voluntary bodies could end up being required to provide information on arrangements which are not part of their remit. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

706 c145-6GC 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top