Title

Parliament has just started debating a Bill which will have major implicationsfor local government, as Nick Raynsford explains The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill has started its passage through the House of Commons. Of all the Bills before parliament this year, this is the one with the largest number of potential implications for local authorities. Its remit is wide-ranging, as its title implies, reflecting its diverse parentage. Introducing the Bill on its second reading on 1 June, just two days before her resignation, the-then secretary of state, Hazel Blears gave particular emphasis to those parts of the legislation which reflected the Communities in control White Paper. She saw the key objectives of the Bill as strengthening local democracy by promoting opportunities for more active citizen engagement. With the debate occurring in the midst of a period of severe political turbulence, it is hardly surprising that both the government and opposition speakers were keen to present their proposal as a means of reconnecting the public with the political system. So, following Ms Blear's advocacy of citizen empowerment as the solution to the problems of public alienation, her shadow, Caroline Spellman, set out her stall as the advocate of decentralisation, promising to sweep away a raft of central and regional controls on local government. Her case would have sounded more convincing had she not simultaneously advocated a freeze on council tax, suggesting any future Conservative Government would not allow any significant financial freedom to local government. David Curry, as a former local government minister, almost always contributes thoughtful and challenging observations to such debates and his speech on this occasion was no exception. He identified the dilemma at the heart of the Bill as the uncertain balance between representative and direct democracy. Should we be seeking to strengthen the operation of representative democracy, or should we instead, encourage more direct involvement of the public in decision-making? He made clear his own preference for representative democracy, but in an elegiac passage worthy of Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, he appeared to be sounding its death knell. He said: ‘The Internet has empowered the citizen, and disempowered institutions… like no other invention since the printing press… ‘The Internet means that in half a day, any one of my constituents can become a bigger expert on a subject than I can ever be. ‘What we might describe as the sacerdotal role of the MP as someone sent to London because they had access to the information needed to enable them to take decisions that the citizen was not in a position to take has disappeared. The citizen can take power, mobilise, and do all sorts of things that were not possible in the past, while governments are disempowered.' Of course, the implications of Mr Curry's observations apply equally to local as to central government. Why is there an ongoing need for elected councillors to take decisions on local matters when citizens could themselves, if enabled to do so with the use of the Internet, research and vote on any issue of local concern? The answer, with which I suspect Mr Curry is in agreement, is that good government, at either local or national level, requires a degree of consistency in decision-making which cannot be guaranteed if left to a self-selecting group of volunteer enthusiasts whose numbers vary from day-to-day and from decision to decision. It also depends on accountability. Knowing that one can be called to account for the decisions one makes is a powerful discipline. We are living through times in which, for a variety of reasons, the credibility of elected representatives has been more seriously damaged than at any period in my lifetime. If we are to see the restoration of good government, this process of undermining public representatives must be reversed. Without sufficient numbers of responsible and public-spirited citizens willing to secure and be accountable for their actions as MPs or councillors, we cannot hope for effective government at central or local level. This is not incompatible with the extension of opportunities for citizens to participate in decision-making. But there has to be a confident reaffirmation of the case for representative democracy at the same time. Nick Raynsford is former local government minister

Title

WHITEHALL

Democracy fits the Bill

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING