Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The amendments explore how districts fit into the arrangements for the provision of information about connected authorities and the roles covered in Clauses 3 and 4. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, makes an important point about district and town-level bodies. That is why districts have a responsibility to promote understanding of their democratic arrangements, which could well mean the local neighbourhood bodies to which he referred and the need for people to understand them. I have said in previous debates that districts, which are often closer and more in touch with the needs of local people, are a vital part of local government and have a vital role to play in relation to this duty and, indeed, to petitions in the next chapter. It may help if I briefly outline for the record how the duty works in relation to districts and counties, so that we have some clarity. The duty applies to districts as well as to counties, which means that if citizens go to districts for the information it should be available. Counties will be required to explain how district councils work and what their councillors do, and vice versa—districts will have to explain about counties. To avoid duplication, the duty ensures that, in two-tier areas, the county will take on the burden of collecting the information from the connected authorities and will be required to pass this on to the districts. Should the county not pass the information on to the district, the district will not be deemed to have failed in its duty in subsections (5) and (6)(c). There is, of course, nothing to prevent the districts from obtaining and passing on information themselves if they want to. We have deliberately structured the provisions to enable district councils to play a full part in promoting understanding of democracy without overburdening their resources and leading to numerous duplicated requests for information from connected authorities. Amendments 68 to 71 seek to do a number of things. I will address each one in turn. The first half of Amendment 68 seeks to make it explicit in the legislation that the duty is on the county to collect the relevant information. As I have said, we believe this to be the effect of the clause. However, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said. We take his point seriously. We will consider this further and come back to it on Report. The second half of the amendment specifies that districts may collect the information either for themselves or on behalf of the county. As always, the noble Lord recognises the very active role that many districts play in two-tier areas and how some may want to be proactive in taking on that role. We recognise the role of districts and agree that they should not be prevented from playing their full part in the duties relating to the promotion of democracy if they wish to. For that reason, nothing in the legislation as drafted would prevent districts from taking on that role if they so desire. Therefore, the provision is unnecessary. We would prefer to address the issue in guidance. In the same vein, Amendment 71 states that, where a district takes on that role, the same conditions should apply to it as to a county when it collects information. Those conditions are that the information must be passed to the other tier at least once a year—although I am about to refer to another amendment that would remove that time limit—and that any changes of which the collecting body is notified should be passed to the other tier. As we have intentionally provided for the counties to disseminate information to the districts to avoid unnecessary burdens on either district councils or connected authorities, to put any duty on the district to pass on the information could open the door to unnecessary duplication and waste of public money. We therefore do not agree with that amendment, or with Amendment 68. The third amendment, Amendment 69, as I just mentioned, would remove the requirement that information be passed from counties to districts at least once a year. We understand the intention, but I suggest that a requirement of providing information at least once a year unless updated information is provided is far from excessive and ensures that the information being promoted is regularly updated. The emphasis is on at least once a year; if there is a new function that affects connected authorities or a new initiative, that information should be passed on, and we expect that to be done immediately or as soon as possible. Lastly, Amendment 70 would remove some of the text that clarifies that counties must pass to districts information received for the purposes of Clauses 2, 3 or 4 in relation to which the district council also has a duty. The amendment would remove the latter part of the clause. That would appear to have the effect of requiring counties to pass to districts all the information that they collect, rather than only information relevant to that district. We understand the noble Lord’s intentions: he may feel that it is more appropriate for districts to determine what information is relevant to provide to their citizens, because they are closer to local communities. However, we think it necessary to be clear that the duty is about promoting understanding of the matters that are relevant to the people in the area. We do not want to burden districts by expecting them to trawl through information that might not be relevant to their area at all, to find which bits are relevant. Again, there is nothing to prevent districts from requesting information that they feel that the county has not passed on that is of import or relevance to them. The duty is therefore framed in that way and the money is being allocated to counties and districts on that basis. Counties have more resources and infrastructure to be able to plough through that information and ensure that districts have the information that they need. I hope that my clarifications have helped and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.