Clause 3
Sustainable Communities Bill
2:15 pm
David Drew (Stroud, Labour)
Following the progress that we have just made—or, at least, I think we have made—I shall speed up. I am delighted to move the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who is the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and myself. These discussions are quite important because they relate to the kernel of the Bill, which about the duty to co-operate. Without the duty appearing in clause 2, clause 3 would be somewhat meaningless.
These amendments were tabled for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that, on Second Reading, a considerable amount of time was spent on the criticisms, quite justified in some respects, that the clause was exclusive rather than inclusive. I listened to those criticisms, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) who said that there was a view that the Bill is unlikely to include those outside the usual suspects and that it was vital for this to be a meaningful piece of legislation. He suggested that we reached out to groups that were not necessarily part of the normal process to try to engage them in what we undertook to be a sustainable community.
Amendment No. 33 is the most important in the group and it spells out clearly what should be in the Bill to make it more inclusive. The hope is that the amendment will be favoured by all of the Committee, and particularly by the Minister. That is why the duty to co-operate is so important. We are not just talking about who should co-operate with the selector, but about the nature of the process on which they are co-operating. I am pleased to lay that point out. There are those who will say that that does not need to be in the Bill; that we have had that debate under clause 2. However, if we are to make the legislation explicit and make it clear that we want to engage in a bottom-up process, we need to clarify who we want to engage with. I hope that that is very clear. Clearly, amendments Nos. 32 and 34 are consequential on that, and I hope that they will not take much time. I certainly am not going to give them much time.
I just want to say a few things about clause 3 as it stands, and why it is so important that it stands part of the Bill. More particularly, however, I want to say why we are toughening up the clause to ensure that we are explicit about who should be co-operated and engaged with, and the process by which that should take place. In a sense, that parallels what is going on with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. Much has been made of clause 108 of that Bill and I am eternally grateful to those who have prepared the papers to help us to understand exactly what we are doing. All I would say is that next time, can we have bigger sheets of paper? We could get even more to read on to one page.
I think that we are clear that we are trying to run this private Member’s Bill in parallel with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which is still passing through the House. It was good to get an explanation of where the provision fits in regard to clause 108 of that Bill. Although we see the two Bills as complementary, we want to give this Bill real teeth. There are elements of clause 108 that we would like to strengthen. The clause is still discretionary and, given our previous discussions on the duty to co-operate, we understand that it is something that will, rather than might, happen.
There are specific reasons why we are outlining the groups to be included in the Bill. We consider that they are appropriate to be engaged with, although it is not an exclusive list. Members of the Committee will also have received a paper from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which wants to make sure that the panels include
“representatives of such persons or bodies as the council considers appropriate being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to the sustainability of local communities in the council’s area”.
The NCVO wants a two-way process of co-operation. The voluntary sector wishes that form of words to appear in the clause to make it clear that a two-way process will take place and to strengthen the provision.
Children’s trusts are a good example and, by their very nature, are about local decisions based on local needs. It was good that the voluntary sector examined how it would genuinely engage with the statutory sector on how children’s trusts could evolve and make sure that they were doing the things that the locality would want them to do. Such action would succeed only if it occurred on the basis of co-operation.
Some appropriate current research has been undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the contribution of local high streets to sustainable communities, and social interactions in urban, public places. In my community of Stonehouse in the constituency of Stroud where I have been a town councillor for 21 years—I do it for real—we are looking at the idea of shared spaces, re-designing how traffic flows through the town and, more particularly, how we engage with the open spaces beyond. I can think of no better example of how to make that community more sustainable than if the local authority hierarchy engaged in such matters gave the planning process some teeth. Clearly, nothing matters more to a local community than the space at its centre and how that is protected, improved and, dare I say, enhanced over time. In trying to strengthen clause 3, we want to make it clear who is engaged, who is co-operating and who they are co-operating with.