Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group, Amendments 69, 70 and 71. They probe the relationship between district councils and county councils in two-tier areas. Amendment 68 would amend Clause 5, which, as it stands, particularly in subsections (5) and (6), sets out quite a complex relationship—it took quite a long time to read and reread it to understand what it was saying. I think that I am right in saying that in a two-tier area the county council will have the duty to collect information and a requirement initially to provide that information, and that the district councils’ responsibility will basically be to provide to members of the public the information that has been collected and passed on to them by the county council. I am glad that the Minister is nodding, not because I agree with the clause—I do not—but because it means that at least I have understood it, which is always a first step. Amendment 68 would turn the process around a little bit, or would at least make it rather more flexible. It would not alter the basic responsibility that lies with the county council but says that the district council may undertake some of the task of collecting information from connected authorities, doing so either because it has been agreed between the district and the county that the district is the sensible authority to collect that information, perhaps because it is more local and has more local connections in relation to the information that has a local dimension, or because the districts feel that the information that they have been provided with by the county council is inadequate in so far as it relates to organisations, authorities or the system that exists within their area—for example, in relation to their LSP—and wish to collect it themselves and improve and enhance the information that they have received from the county council. Of course there are county local strategic partnerships and health service organisations such as PCTs and hospital trusts that cover substantial parts of the county where it is sensible for the county council to carry out the collection of the information, but surely it is also sensible, where an LSP is closely involved with the district council on a daily basis, that the district council should be the body to collect the information. Equally, let us look at bodies that are clearly connected to a local authority and offer opportunities for members of the public to get involved in local democratic structures, but which operate at the town or even more local level. For example, in our meeting last week, I read out a list of organisations in Colne, where I live, all of which have a close connection with the district council and some also with the county council. If this is to be a sensible list of connected authorities, one that gives people information on how they can get involved, these bodies will have to be included on it. If they are not, the main opportunities at the local level will not be on the list. People might be told how they can get involved with, say, the Homes and Communities Agency—we are all waiting with fascinated anticipation to see how that will work—or they may be told how to get involved with the local primary care trust if they are lucky enough to become a member of it, but they will not be able to find out how to get involved with the kind of local organisation where someone can simply turn up and become a part of it in the space of a week. That is my point. In many areas it is the district council that knows about these organisations far better than the county council. If the county has the duty, it will not be carried out as well. Amendment 68 provides only that the district council ““may”” do this; if it does not want to use resources on it, it does not have to. However, it is given a more positive involvement in the process than that currently provided in the Bill. I turn to a curiosity that I do not quite understand. Subsection (6)(a) states that the county council has to pass on to the district council any relevant information, "““at least once a year””." However, paragraph (b) states that, when it has done that, any changes have to be notified straightaway. That seems odd; indeed, these two paragraphs do not seem to be in line with each other. Once the initial scheme has been set up, which will not tally with ““once a year”” but with when the information is first handed over, the county council ought to be under a duty to pass on further information within a reasonable period of having gathered it, otherwise what the district hands out or publishes on its website will not be up to date; you could have a situation where the county’s information says one thing and the district’s another. Amendment 70 probes the meaning of the words, "““in relation to which the district council also has a duty under that section””." I do not understand what that means. Will the district council have a duty in relation to organisations that affect its area but not organisations that affect a different area and are not countywide? In other words, are we talking about information that affects everybody in the county or the region plus information relevant to the district? Is it geographical or is it to do with functions? Are we saying that district councils are responsible for passing over some information related to district council functions but not that related to county council functions? The phrase, "““in relation to which the district council also has a duty under that section””," needs to be made clearer if people are to understand what it means. Finally, Amendment 71 is consequential on my Amendment 68 and means simply that the duty on the county council to pass information to the district would also apply to the district to pass information to the county if the district were collecting information either on behalf of the county or otherwise. The Minister may say that what I propose would make things more complicated. I do not think that it would; I think that it would make the whole information-collecting system much more efficient and more likely to include organisations and bodies that people feel they have a genuine affinity with and which they feel give them a genuine chance of getting involved, rather than the rather dim and distant prospect of becoming a member of the Homes and Communities Agency or even the primary care trust. I beg to move.