Promoting democracy - Is the Government right to have cold feet about the ‘duty to promote democracy’ ?

It’s already law!

Section 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act creates a new duty for local authorities in England and Wales to promote the opportunities for citizen involvement in a surprising range of local institutions. These include a long list of those which critics have long labelled as featuring a ‘democratic deficit’. Even though an English local NHS Trust, for example is ultimately responsible to the Department of Health, there are structures whereby interested people can express their views (e.g. Local Involvement Networks or LINks). Even though the Police are similarly answerable to the Home Office, again there are various forms of consultative machinery.

The trouble is that there is massive ignorance about these opportunities for involvement and the argument for the new ‘duty to promote democracy’ is that greater visibility would encourage more participation. The unfairly-criticised Councillors Commission Report made the case for new legislation, and argued that a new culture of local involvement was overdue; this is not a million miles from the Conservatives’ ideas of localism. Even in Parliament, few politicians quarrelled over the aspiration; the issue is whether this type of legislation is the best way to achieve it. Anyway, in November it received the Royal Assent.

So why are there now stories in the media that the new ‘duty’ has been put on hold? Is there possibly a belated realisation that passing legislation is the easy part and that implementation is difficult? Might Whitehall’s underestimate of the costs be proving embarrassing in the current financial climate? Or is there too much opposition from sceptical local authorities? Remember that under the ‘new burdens’ doctrine, this Government promised to compensate Councils for the costs of every new task imposed upon them – and perhaps DCLG doesn’t have the money.

Whatever the reason, it may be a good time to go through the pro’s and con’s. Legislation or not, the problem of disconnected communities remains and there may be a need for vigorous local debates in the coming months as a new Government works out its position. So here goes.

In favour of the new ‘duty’ • Lots of local public services try to promote involvement – but someone has to take the lead and co-ordinate what is otherwise a bureaucratic jungle – impenetrable to local citizens • It might encourage elected members to take a greater interest in partner service-providers and strengthen inter-agency working • It should reinforce a Council’s role of ‘community leadership’ • Obliging every Council to follow suit encourages a uniform minimum standard of information about participation opportunities; less postcode lottery!

Against the new ‘duty’ • Partner agencies may do less to publicise their own involvement structures in the belief that the Council will do it all for them • When money is scarce, Authorities will discharge this duty by using internet websites and this will do little to widen participation and encourage greater inclusivity • There is little point in spreading the word about consultation and engagement until public bodies take consultee viewpoints more seriously ... and start to listen • Local authorities – and other public bodies always do something better because they want to do it, rather than because central Government tells them to do it.

So where does this leave it? If you believe in reducing the role of the State, in letting decisions be taken at the lowest level practicable, then you will recoil from interventionist edicts of this kind and let Councils that feel that their areas need a stronger voice in the planning and discharge of public service to find imaginative ways of exerting influence.

If on the other hand, you see an inexorable trend towards greater accountability and transparency in the way that public money is spent on our behalf, and if you believe that public bodies – including Councils, have been too slow to respond to this, you will be keen to place upon them pressure to go further and faster.

But maybe what counts is what the public itself wants. How much longer will they tolerate being kept in the dark about decisions that affect them? Will they insist that Councils and Councillors help them be heard?

And will Councils then respond ... duty or no duty?

Trigger points

• If you work for a local authority, has it an idea of how it should respond to the local ‘democratic deficit’ ?
• If you work for another public body, are you doing enough to encourage the public to become involved in your decision-making?
• As a member of the public, do you feel you are sufficiently informed about opportunities to influence services provided in your area?
• Strengthen your understanding of the dynamics affecting local public engagement with the Institute's Implementing the Duty to Involve and Managing Public Engagement courses.

This is the 154th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement