Mr.
Jackson: Will the Minister give
way?
Ms
Winterton: I was just about to finish—I know that
my Whip would like that—however, I shall give
way.
Mr.
Jackson: I am slightly concerned about the developing
rather insidious nature of the clause. The right hon. Lady, in her
eloquent and charming way, is effectively leading us to the idea that
local authorities will have a new legal responsibility and duty, under
which, one assumes, they will be punished for the inability of separate
third-party bodies to recruit adequate numbers of women and people from
black and minority ethnic communities, based on adverse decisions with
respect to the comprehensive assessment prevalent in local government.
That does not seem fair, and indeed seems rather
iniquitous.
Ms
Winterton: It is not iniquitous at all. Obviously, if the
hon. Gentleman had his way none of this would be done. If we took the
“do nothing” attitude—where did that phrase come
from?—we would make no progress whatever in gathering the
information and trying to encourage our local authorities to get people
more involved in playing a role in our civic society. It is always
easier to say, “Let’s not try. Let’s do nothing.
Let’s sit back”, and just hope that it all happens as if
by magic. What we are doing is looking at where we feel there can be
greater participation, encouragement for participation, and promotion
of understanding. People will find that an effective and helpful way of
encouraging them to shape services, to be involved in decision making,
and to get involved in civic life. I hope that with those reassurances
the opposition to the clause will crumble and the clause will have
unanimous
support. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
5.
Division
No.
3]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4Lay
justices Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Goodman: When we were both even younger than we are now,
Mr. Amess, and when all the other members of the Committee
were younger, a famous politician got into a bit of trouble. I will not
identify his political party, because, heavens, that would be too
controversial, but his answer to all difficult questions was
“ditto”, over and over again. Clause 4 is a ditto clause
in that we will get the ditto answer from the Minister to our ditto
objections. There is no reason whatever for the clause to be in the
Bill. It is perfectly worth while for local authorities to promote
understanding of a lay justice, but there is no reason why such
promotion should be burdensome and
bureaucratic.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I have been trying to follow the hon.
Gentleman’s remarks, but either I was too young to be aware of
the politician he mentions, or I was not even born at the time.
However, his theme is
relevant. In
the Minister’s closing remarks on the previous clause, she
talked about the “do nothing” approach. The Liberal
Democrats are not saying that nothing needs to be done, but the
Government’s approach seems to be, “If in doubt,
legislate.” That seems to be the case in so much Home Office
legislation, which has demonstrated that legislation is not a proxy for
action. Putting provisions into primary legislation does not mean that
we will end up with the results that the right hon. Lady hopes for. In
fact, the Councillors Commission and the “be a
councillor” campaign have shown that the most effective
advocates for encouraging wider participation in civic life are
individuals who recruit and head-hunt others, and explain the role to
them. That is better than a corporate approach, although it is
available as back-up, but all the campaign’s excellent work was
achieved without the need for an Act to support it. The work was all
about supporting individuals, but unfortunately the Bill is presumably
about providing corporate material and putting a duty on councils,
rather than stating that there should be a duty for everybody
involved. I
strongly feel that such a silo mentality needs to be broken down. It
would have been refreshing if the Bill had mentioned how some of the
issues could be dealt with by cutting across different Departments.
Perhaps the issues would be best addressed through guidance and a
best-practice manual, but by trying to deal with them through primary
legislation, the Government are boxing themselves into a corner, which
will not achieve their stated
aims.
Ms
Winterton: I will be very brief, because a lot of dittoing
may be going on. In that respect, I can say only that the hon. Lady is
not right to say that the issues
should be spread wider instead of brought together under one hub. What I
said was that we certainly believe that other organisations should
promote how they work and how people can get involved in decision
making, but we think it is a good idea for local councils to bring that
information
together.
Julia
Goldsworthy: In which case, why is there not a requirement
for local authorities to promote the way that democracy works in
Westminster? If local authorities are to be the hub, why is there not
more on the face of the Bill to explain how democratic institutions
work at national level, and perhaps at European level? Why are there
not other duties to promote understanding of all those bodies, such as
the Child Support Agency, which was referred to earlier, where there
may not be a local impact? How those services impact on an individual
would certainly be of great interest to that
individual.
Ms
Winterton: As I said, the measure is about services at
local level. It is about people getting involved in shaping those
services. It is about people understanding how different organisations
work at local level; this is a local government Bill. I very much hope
that with those reassurances the Opposition will again crumble,
although I think it unlikely. However, I hope the Committee support
this wonderful
clause. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
Division
No.
4] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
4 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5Provision
of
information Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Goodman: Subsection 6 was added in the Lords, if I
remember rightly. I have nothing more to say about it. Generally, the
aim of the clause appears to be—I hope the Minister will say a
little more about it in a moment—to protect local authorities,
up to a point, from some of the consequences of the earlier clauses
that we debated this morning. Subsection (1) looks forward to a
situation in which a local authority has apparently requested
information from other bodies in order to promote understanding and so
on, and those other bodies have been less than helpful. Someone
somewhere—one of the many brilliant civil servants who work on
the Bill—presumably said, “Look Minister, we need some
protection for local authorities if all those many other bodies we have
listed in earlier clauses turn out to act unreasonably.” That,
returning to our leitmotif, illustrates the folly of putting all these
things on the statute book at all, because having done so one then has
to insert supplementary clauses such as this one in order to protect
bodies that have been listed in earlier
clauses. 5
pm I
am not a lawyer, but I am quite interested in this. There will
presumably be a legal definition that the Minister knows, or
inspiration will provide an answer about the extent to which the other
body has not provided the information for the local authority as
required. I am curious to know how one judges the extent to which the
body has provided or not provided the information that would enable the
local authority to be protected by the
clause. Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I echo the comments of
other members of the Committee in that it is a pleasure to see you in
the Chair, Mr. Amess, providing a style complementary to
that of your fellow Chairman, whom we had the pleasure of serving under
earlier. As
the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, this aspect highlights the
weakness in all that has gone before. It obviously felt unreasonable to
ask the local authorities to do something over which they have no
control—that is, where they need information to provide it to
local people, they must be able to request it from the bodies
concerned. If those bodies turn out to be far too busy or have other
priorities and do not provide it, it is only reasonable that the local
authority is not held to that duty.
However, it
strikes me that it would be far more reasonable not to impose that duty
in the first place, which is what we have been talking about
throughout. This really highlights the nonsense that is the early part
of the Bill—imposing a duty on a local authority rather than
issuing guidance on best practice. As I and other hon. Members said
during consideration of previous clauses, that would be a far more
sensible way
forward. The
Liberal Democrats see the clause as highlighting the problem with the
whole of this part of the Bill. It is there so the Government can be
seen to be acting and forcing local authorities to do something that in
many circumstances they may not be able to do. This part of the Bill is
pretty pointless and clause 5 serves to highlight
that.
Ms
Winterton: The hon. Member for Wycombe has shown a sharp,
razor-like understanding of what the clause is all
about—ensuring that local authorities have the protection he
referred to, and rightly so. Obviously, the words “to the extent
that” have been advised by lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen
to make the provision absolutely clear cut. It is also true that we
think it important to have these safeguards in the legislation, which
is why clause 5 is there. There is no point in going over the arguments
we have already had about whether any of these clauses should exist. We
think this an
important part of ensuring that local people understand how to get
involved in local institutions and play a role in civic
life. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
Division
No.
5] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
