Clause
23Duty
of public authorities to secure
involvement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Goodman: Well, another clause, another duty. The
succession of duties in clauses perhaps explains why so far only clause
16 has gone through
unopposed. Clause
23 is curious because, if one reads it closely, it does not appear to
have a great deal of confidence in itself. It begins by describing a
number of bodies that are not local authorities at all. Earlier, the
Minister was making a great deal of saying in her responses to points
raised and in her remarks that, after all, the Bill was about local
authorities. Yet here is a clause that is not aimed at local
authorities at all, which rather belies the drift of her earlier
remarks. The
clause states that an authority may consider it appropriate to involve
interested persons—who, let us note, is anyone who may appear to
the authority to be a representative of interested persons—but
it does not specify on what basis such appearance is to be judged,
which is part of the nonsense that one gets into, I am afraid, when
such clauses are tabled.
Subsection (1)
states that once an authority considers it appropriate to involve
interested persons,
“it must take
such steps as it considers
appropriate”. Note
the word “must”. Once again, the essential heaviness of
the duty—its burdensome nature—is revealed in that word.
Then a whole series of bodies is listed. I will not make a great meal
of asking why they are there, because I am sure that that was discussed
in the Lords and that the Minister will tell us. However, what follows
in the Bill seems to demonstrate a certain lack of confidence in the
clause.
Subsection
(4) states that subsection (1), which is the foundation on which the
whole idea
rests, “does
not require an authority to take a
step”— in
other words, to do anything at
all— “if
the authority does not have the power to take the step apart from this
section”. That
seems to indicate that the Minister thinks that the section is not
enough to compel the duty to come into being, which does not seem to
show a great deal of confidence.
Subsection
(5), which is a further safety section, makes it clear that the whole
bang
shoot “does
not apply in such cases as the Secretary of State may be order made by
statutory instrument
specify.” It
is an unsatisfactory clause, so unless the Minister can give a better
account for it than for most clauses that we have considered so far, we
intend to divide the Committee.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I shall make some brief remarks on the
clause. I cannot see it doing anything other than contradicting
everything the Minister has said previously. The first clause that we
debated gives the principal local authority a duty to promote an
understanding of the functions and democratic arrangements of an
authority and of how members of the public can take part in those
arrangements. We had a long debate on why regional development agencies
should not be part of the authorities that local authorities were
trying to promote an understanding of. However, clause 23 specifies the
regional development agencies, but under a kind of power that says,
“You can do what you like, really: if you would like to engage
with people, you may do so, but if you do not, then do not worry about
it.” If some regional development agencies are coming forward to
involve people in the exercise of that function, I still do not
understand why they have been excluded from previous clauses. Why have
they been included in this clause when they have been excluded in
previous clauses? That just points to some wider flaws in the Bill. It
seems that the clause is nothing more than legislative filler, so I
will vote against it if I get the
opportunity. Ordered,
That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr.
Watts.) 6.57
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 11 June at Nine
o’clock.
| 
