Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

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. Indeed, I made a point of monitoring some of their work on local area agreements. They are often very large, are chaired by different sorts of people and make critical decisions about priorities in their local area. They can be quite elusive. We are absolutely right to take partnership seriously because we want local people to be involved in shaping services. 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. Nothing in this duty restricts local authorities to these bodies alone. If they want to go further and apply this duty to other bodies, they are at liberty to do so. 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. 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.