Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

When we come to that clause, we will discuss the nature of that guidance, what might go into it, why it is important to have that power and why local government will be helped by it. We can debate that when we come to it. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that we should throw all these back to the process in the community engagement White Paper. This grew out of that White Paper because the Councillors Commission formed the basis of it and what we took forward. In addition, the Local Government Information Unit, which is not shy about challenging our proposals, welcomes the duty to promote democracy and recognises the influence on these duties of two independent reviews: the All-Party Parliamentary Local Government Group’s inquiry into the role of local councillors and the Councillors Commission. What is the accumulated evidence that all those inquiries and bodies have unveiled? The Councillors Commission review recognised the importance of awareness of what councillors do. The evidence for action, presented to us by Jane Roberts, was overwhelming. An Ipsos MORI survey for the Local Government Association shows that only 32 per cent of people know, or know a fair amount about, what their council does. The two-tier authorities are in a more complex position. Research by Hands in 2007 showed a lack of awareness of the role of the councillor and confusion with the almighty ““counsellor””. Struggling with that confusion is at heart of this proposal. My noble friend Lord Borrie spoke about the accumulated evidence of voter turn-out, about which we are all deeply concerned. The All-Party Parliamentary Local Government Group, in its March 2007 inquiry into of the role of councillors, identified a lack of awareness of the councillor’s role as a key barrier to attracting potential councillors and proposed greater action from local authorities in attracting people to stand as local councillors. Perhaps I may sum this up with a quote from Jane Roberts’ report: "““People are unlikely to feel a sense of engagement with something they do not understand. The starting point for facilitating engagement locally is through communication””." In response, the commission’s primary recommendation was that there should be a statutory duty on all principal authorities to facilitate democratic engagement by proactively disseminating clear and accessible information on how local governance works and what councils and councillors do; by facilitating more active civic participation; and by raising interest in and promoting the role of councillor, how to become a councillor and the activities of elected members. We have specified some duties, but local authorities are able to determine the most appropriate ways to fulfil them for their local area. I am sure that they will build on the embedded work that already takes place to promote elections and community empowerment, using the techniques that they have already established. They will work with different partners in different ways. We have made specific effort to keep the amount of detail in the legislation to a minimum. We have not specified, other than very broadly, the information that needs to be provided. However, we have had to build in safeguards. Much of the detail is about protecting local authorities rather than getting them to follow some strict, detailed prescription. We are very much aware of this. My noble friend Lord Woolmer said that people grasp single issues because they either do not want to, or cannot, wrestle with the complex interrelationships of what the local authority does. Often, some of the solutions to those single issues can be achieved only if one understands the context in which the decision or situation concerned is being worked out. Taking all this together, we want to encourage local government to be more confident and ensure that people know about local government processes and how to get involved. We want it to be available across the country. We have some outstanding local authorities which do excellent work. I know at first hand the work that is done in Essex, for example, which is the patch of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. It is an example to many parts of the country. However, as my noble friends have said, many local councils do not do this work very well and some not at all. That is the principal issue that we have to address. We must have a genuinely fair way for people to access information and, therefore, democracy. The Government are very cautious about imposing new duties on local government because we know the consequences. We have seen a huge improvement in services due to investment and changing practices. That is to the great credit of local government. There has been a massive increase in the quality of service, but, as my noble friend Lord Borrie pointed out, paradoxically, this has not been followed by a corresponding rise in the reputation of local government or the respect in which it is held. These are serious and debilitating difficulties if we look forward to what local government has to achieve in the next 50 years. Among other things, that obviously means that local government cannot recruit new members easily. It is neither young enough nor diverse enough to represent the full community and is more likely to be criticised than celebrated for what it is doing. That divergence between what the community thinks it needs and what it thinks that local government is doing is growing. That is not only of concern to this party or this Government. It is a serious issue which we must address. We have moved away from swathes of targets for local authorities and towards local area agreements and local determination. We have moved from ring-fencing to flexible budgets. We can see the result in better relationships between central and local government. All that is excellent, and this is a complementary step to it. We want to make it transparent and clear, and enable councillors to do so, that the council is intent on working with the local community in terms of informing people about the actual processes as well as the likely outcomes: the work of councillors and how local people can get a grip on what is going on. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked how we could guarantee that there will be a difference. Well, one difference is that we ought to be able to guarantee that people in Pendle will have a map, a central point of information, an access point that will enable them to understand more about these relationships and how a democratic opportunity exists not just in the local authority but in the partnerships and partner authorities—to which we will come in later amendments—to influence change and get involved. It may take some time, but we will know if the ultimate goal is working when we start to see a greater number and diversity of people getting involved and standing for civic roles; not just councillors but a different sort of person standing for the local PCT or PTA. We must challenge the sort of usual suspects who are likely to come forward. The IDeA’s biannual national census of local authorities and councils will help to track the effect. The quarterly citizenship survey includes questions on civic participation and activism. We can use that for measuring achievement against PSA15, which is about citizenship involvement. We will track it through the comprehensive areas assessment, where local authorities have responded. This will not completely disappear into the ether. The duties set out in Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 are therefore placed on the local authorities. We are talking about a genuine culture change, but it is not a new concept. Local government has responded positively to the duty to involve in the 2007 Act, which comes into force in April. In the Bill we are taking the next step to ensure that people not only have the opportunity to be involved, but to act on that because they know how to. As I said, it is about building on the best work and creating opportunities. Essentially, however, it means that, as the Councillors Commission recognised, the duty itself requires a duty rather than an aspiration. That will means that it is explicit and clear in its requirements, fair to all, consistently and effectively applied, and affordable. That is why we have framed the duties as we have, and why we are providing funding to all local authorities to allow them to discharge these duties properly. In place of that, Members of the Committee opposite have reached for a much weaker formula in Amendment 21 that gives a get-out clause to councils so that they can argue that the costs of this new role are simply too expensive. Well, I have ensured that the Bill allocates a reasonable sum, which has been worked out in conjunction with the advice of local authorities themselves, so that the councils can meet this new duty. They will receive the sum in their settlements once the duty is in place. Much of the work will be embedded in, and build on, what is already happening. It will be up to local authorities to use that money in the most effective way possible, so an additional measure in the Bill to determine whether costs are reasonable is unnecessary. I turn finally to Amendments 1, 22, 59 and 60. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are suggesting that we do not require a local authority to do anything but have, "““regard to the desirability of promoting””," understanding. This undermines the intention of the duties and the power of what we are trying to do. It would not impose any duty on the local authorities to do anything. I imagine that the noble Lords have in mind a duty for local authorities to have regard to the desirability of promoting democracy, but this is not an adequate substitute for a clear and unambiguous duty, as my noble friends have said, to take specific actions. In any event, there are many functions of the authority which do not obviously lend themselves to the promotion of democracy, such as rubbish collection. We cannot accept these clauses, which would render the duty nugatory. Amendments 2, 21, 23 and 61 on our requirement on local authorities seek to qualify the duty by adding that local authorities must use ““reasonable endeavours””. We have been purposely silent on how local authorities will fulfil their duties in relation to promotion of democracy. That is right and responsive to local government itself. We want it to be as flexible as possible. The duties as drafted leave it to the local authority to judge how best to discharge this duty without incurring unreasonable cost. We have not prescribed how they will promote democratic understanding, or later—when we turn to Clauses 3 and 4—promote the roles of lay justices, members of courts boards and so on. We trust local authorities to make sensible and proportionate decisions about how best to promote democratic understanding in their areas. We are seeking a power to issue guidance, because it will help local authorities to proceed in a logical and supported fashion. This will be flexible in approach to the duty and will encourage the imaginative and innovative responses based on best practice. I apologise for speaking at such length but, as this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, it is worth having the debate. I quite understand that this is new territory and absolutely appropriate to raise—