Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for enabling me to speak to Amendment 138ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I cannot understand why so many people are going for a competing attraction when this Committee offers such a compelling experience. Those of us who went through the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 are still living with the duty to involve. This group of amendments invites me to explain why we are extending the duty to partner authorities, and I hope that I can satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, on that point. They argue that the clauses should not stand part of the Bill at all and that the duty should be extended to other partners or even to different functions. The debate gives me an opportunity to explain, while picking up some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, why the lists are as they are. Let me explain the logic of what we were trying to achieve. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 places a duty to involve on best-value authorities, which comes into force from April this year. I am delighted to say that the response to the duty has been very positive. Local authorities welcome this duty to involve. Many already take that responsibility seriously as part of their normal duties, and they are keen to increase involvement. I hope the Committee will not mind if I quote one example of that and of how the argument has gone forward. There has been a successful engagement in Ipswich with the ““You Said, We Did”” initiative. It picked up beautifully on a scheme run by a well known commercial organisation that proved that, if they asked, customers got what they asked for. Ipswich has been proactive in encouraging citizens to come forward with their concerns, acting on them and giving feedback on the action taken. The initiative has been tremendously popular, with hundreds of people attending meetings to take part. It has strengthened engagement and led to many improvements in the community. That feedback, which communicates the results of what people have asked for, is a key factor in its success. In considering how to take matters forward and make the duty to involve a reality, we took the new performance framework that we are introducing as our starting point. It is to the credit of local authorities that local area agreements have developed and have been so well managed and successful so far. I pay particular tribute to Essex, with which I have a communicating, not mentoring, arrangement, as I do with a few other authorities, so that I can see what they are doing. We feel it important that this duty applies to partner organisations, which are under a duty to co-operate with councils to agree local performance targets. This proposal was discussed and agreed with the relevant partner organisations. I hope to pick up that point and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about that consultation. We subsequently announced in the Communities in Control White Paper our intention to extend the duty to partner organisations. The list of partner authorities is set out in Clause 23. It is the list that we used in the 2007 Act, with two exceptions. We have added the new Homes and Communities Agency to ensure that principles of involvement apply to it. It is important that we do that because the HCA has a duty to agree local performance targets with the local authority, which is an important step forward. We have also added economic prosperity boards in combined authorities. We will discuss the status and purposes of EPBs later, but I must advise noble Lords that adding them is an oversight, and I shall be moving an amendment to remove them. I am sad to confess to a failure of drafting. We have to take out EPBs, which are established by Part 6, because they are to be best-value authorities and are covered by the duty under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. There is no reason to duplicate that, and I will take them out of the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is content with that explanation. The duty to involve is a simple, logical extension of what we put in place in 2007. It is an opportunity for the local community to have its say, to be informed about and to become involved in a wider range of partner services and authorities, which are there to deliver the objective of the LAA, whether it is improved social care for elderly people or dealing with social issues such as teenage pregnancy. I therefore cannot agree that the clause should not stand part. On the construction of the list itself—and, ironically, as we have to take EPBs out—we looked closely across the different departments to make sure that we were not duplicating what was provided anywhere else. We have not included best-value authorities on the list, for that very reason; nor have we included authorities that have a comparable duty when undertaking their specific functions. The list is in line with the overall agenda for community empowerment and the local performance framework, and it has been agreed with the partner authorities. As we keeping saying, there must be a balance, and we are keen not to be too prescriptive. This is evidenced by our making it absolutely clear that each of the different authorities needs to determine for itself the appropriate level of involvement in its functions. That will differ depending on the body in question and the functions it performs. I hope that that will address some of the issues raised by Amendment 138, which asks essentially to involve all interested persons in authorities’ functions. Although I know that the amendment is a hook for a wider explanation, I do not believe that it is appropriate, for the following reasons. If we adopted such a construction, it would be overly burdensome in terms of the resources required, in particular the cost of the involvement and the potential return. It would breach certain legal or Community obligations, such as privacy issues around staffing and litigation procedures. A further reason is that involvement of local representatives is being addressed via another statutory requirement. We want to keep closely to the duty to involve set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. In effect, we are using this Bill to extend the duty but to be non-prescriptive. Several amendments have, however, sought to extend the scope of the clause. Amendment 138ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean explicitly referring to voluntary and community organisations in the reference to, "““interested persons of a particular description””." I fully agree that those organisations are such vital partners in the community, designing services, delivering them, working with local authorities under commission and so on, that they should be fully involved. However, the amendment is unnecessary as a consequence of the rules of statutory interpretation. ““Persons”” in this context, applying the Interpretation Act 1978, includes bodies corporate and unincorporate as well as individuals. I think, however, that the noble Lord would almost certainly have used his amendment to ask me about the compact arrangement between the third sector and government, and whether it could be improved by giving it a statutory framework. I wish to put on the record that the Government are committed to making the compact between the sector and government work, and to improving the way that public bodies and third sector organisations work together. As such, the role of the Commission for the Compact is highly valued. Sir Bert Massie, who, as we all know, is an extremely powerful advocate for the voluntary sector and the many different interests within it, has recommended that the Commission for the Compact be established as a statutory body, which would enable it to follow good practice for non-departmental public bodies and would help strengthen its role in improving relations between public bodies and third sector organisations. We are very sympathetic to the proposal. However, there are significant practical obstacles. The Office of the Third Sector has started to develop this proposal across Whitehall. Many departments, not least my own, have close relations with the third sector and want to see it improved and strengthened. These discussions have also involved Compact Voice, which represents the third sector on the compact; the commission itself; and other interested parties, such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the LGA. Having looked at the implications of creating a statutory framework for the relationship represented by the compact, it has been very clear that it is not merely a question of an enabling clause; it needs a robust and appropriate structure. Frankly, more work is needed to flesh out the implications of moving the commission from being a private company to a statutory body. Noble Lords will know that, when we have created statutory bodies in this House, we have had to go into great detail to make sure that they are fit for purpose and do their intended job. We are intent on making sure that we do that work, particularly ensuring that the commission has the right powers to support its work. Having spoken to some bodies in the third sector recently, I know that they understand that whatever framework is created needs to be sufficient and predictable. Until that work has been done, the third sector and the Government share the view that we are not yet in a position to introduce new legislation or amendments to set up the commission as a statutory body. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has created and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the third sector will be grateful to have that assurance on the record. We will move with all speed to work out what is necessary and we will do that in partnership. Amendment 139 proposes replacing the word ““representatives”” with ““persons”” when referring to who should be involved; it follows on from Amendment 138. It is worth retaining the use of the term ““representative”” because it is not meant to be unduly restrictive and refer only to formally elected or nominated members of the public. An authority will consider the diverse groups who may be affected by, or interested in, a particular function and engage with those people who are felt to be representative. These groups will be informed, consulted and involved and will vary depending on the type of authority and the level at which they operate, or the policy or service in question. Referring to ““persons”” could imply communicating with every individual, which, as I said earlier, could create a significant burden. Amendment 141, also proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, calls for the addition of text so that ““interested persons”” includes parish councils. That amendment is unnecessary because ““person”” can include a parish council. The Interpretation Act 1978 states that a person includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporated. That includes third sector groups, businesses and organisations as well as individuals. One of the ironies of legislation is that if we were to refer specifically to a parish council, we may cast doubt on the efficacy of relying on the meaning given to the word ““person”” in the Interpretation Act 1978. I should also point out that statutory guidance in the duty to involve under Section 138 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 refers specifically to parish councils in its list of who may be covered by the term ““local persons””. We now come to the things that might be added to our list of partner authorities. Amendment 140 proposes adding the Marine Management Organisation being established by the current Marine and Coastal Access Bill—an attraction in another part of the theatre. We are liaising with Defra, the DfT and the DECC—the three sponsoring departments for the MMO—about whether adding this proposed body to the list is a desirable option. We will come back to that and report to noble Lords at a later stage. Amendment 140A would add NHS bodies to the list. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, invited me to give a clear explanation of why they were not included. NHS bodies are already under a comparable duty to involve in Section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006. I am delighted to say that the NHS already sees the involvement and engagement of the citizens whom it serves as important and valid ways to improve services and functions and has a number of good examples that demonstrate that. The participatory budgeting scheme in Southampton is an excellent example of involvement. I am afraid that I must also reject Amendment 142, which would add to the list ““representatives of local government””. We do not need to include this group as statutory consultees for guidance to the public authorities listed at subsection (2). Should any guidance be proposed in the future, I can assure the noble Lord that we would have a consultation process, and I hope that local government would come forward and comment as freely as it usually does. I have spoken at some length because a number of different issues have been raised by the different amendments. The duty to involve has got off to a very positive and constructive start in local government, not only in improving how services are delivered but in increasing influence and ownership. I think that what we intend to do in the Bill is logical, sensible and proportionate. It will make an even greater difference to the way in which people influence what happens and indeed to the quality of the partnership between local authorities and their partner authorities as they deliver the local area agreements.