David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I want to ask for clarity on one or two points. Subsection (1) talks about a duty “to promote understanding”. I should like to know how local authorities can do that. Is it the same as raising awareness, which is one of the favourite things that lobby groups talk about? I have spent most of my political career trying to dampen down awareness, which is by far the most sensible thing to do in our profession.

Then we come to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Should the little word “and” appear after each paragraph so that it reads, “the functions of authorities” and “the democratic arrangements” and

“how members of the public can take part.”?

Or are they choices, because when we come to the explanation of the authorities concerned, some have absolutely no democratic credentials. My primary care trust is not elected in any shape or form. Nobody is elected to a primary care trust, so how can we promote the democratic credentials of a body that has none?

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

The Minister muttered from a sedentary position that those bodies have councillors on them, but I am not sure whether that makes them democratic. How can this possibly apply to a strategic health authority, the most remote kind of public body I have encountered in my eight years in this place?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

That is precisely the case and there is a very serious point behind this. Quite rightly, the Government wish social services departments and health bodies to act more closely together because the links between them are close and they depend to a significant extent on one another. Social services are subject to local authority control because they have elected councillors, but health authorities are not. I know that health trusts have elections, but turnout is so low that it must mean that the electorate is very small. I suspect that the only smaller electorate in the world is that which re-elects  hereditary peers from among the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. That is the world’s most micro electorate. The turnout for people electing health trusts is around 2 per cent.

My question is very simple and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal raised it in the Chamber. How can one promote democratic arrangements for bodies that have no democracy in them? What do you say about them when trying to fulfil this clause? I would be fascinated to know and to find out quite what “promoting understanding” means and how one does it.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon who has, as ever, put his finger on some of the problematic aspects of the clause.

I presume that this clause will also give rise to a performance indicator that a local authority may or may not choose to accept. It is likely that most of them will not and it is very hard to see why this is in the Bill at all. If the Minister’s answer had been other than it was, I concede that it would have been heavy-handed on the part of central Government. Like so many of these clauses, it veers between heavy-handedness and being completely unnecessary. On that theme, let me turn to the clause itself.

As my right hon. Friend said, the clause sets out a duty to promote understanding and names a number of bodies. The inclusion of the bodies concerned and the exclusion of others was heavily debated in the Lords. Then, near the end in subsection (6), we are told that this list which we are now debating properly—as we should be able to—can be amended without any democratic consideration whatever. This is a point to which I will return. My right hon. Friend raised the point about the promotion of understanding so I will not go over that again, but the Committee will be curious, as was the Lords, to hear the justification for the list of these bodies before us today.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

In studying this particular part of the clause is my hon. Friend, like me, slightly philosophical about what should and should not be included? Many of these bodies have an interface with their localities and local constituents and deliver key public services. Given that, why does he think, for instance, that the Child Support Agency—or whatever it is now called—or the Borders and Immigration Agency, where we are forced to wait twelve months or more for an answer to questions, are not included in this list? Hon. Members will know that we have a significant case load of local people in our constituencies concerned about those departments.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come to it in a moment because, by rising, he happily jogged my memory about a key issue in relation to this clause. It is one I think we should raise at the start of many of these clauses and which was raised at the start of clause 1. It returns to the simple question of why on earth we need any of this set out on the statute book in the first place. There is a long list of bodies and a duty to promote understanding. |Of course a local authority should do that; we have no quarrel with the idea. It is a good one, and we can see why  Ministers and the Government support it, but the moment one begins to set all that out in statute, it gives rise to questions such as the one that my hon. Friend just asked, to which I shall return in a moment.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked why duties should not be placed on other bodies to promote an understanding of local authorities. It is a question that applies in the clause. Here is a long list of bodies—chief officer of police, the broads authority, a national park authority and so on—and the Government believe it essential to write into statute that local authorities should promote understanding of what they do.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

If my hon. Friend goes further, he will notice that the Government must promote understanding of Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. Will not local authorities spend the entirety of their time and use their whole staff promoting understanding of functions that they no longer have the time to carry out?

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Of course, and with all the costs and complications that follow. My right hon. Friend raises an interesting avenue of exploration. If the Government are determined to foist all these obligations on local authorities to promote understanding of bodies that the Government claim are democratic, such as primary care trusts—although the Minister intervened to say, sotto voce, that they include elected councillors—will the Government, by their own logic, propose another measure placing on all those bodies a duty to promote the understanding of local authorities? If not, why not? We look forward to the Minister telling us.

Turning to the matter of who is on the list, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised the question of the Child Support Agency. He asked, in effect, “If a strategic health authority, why not the Child Support Agency?” It is hard to see why not. As my right hon. Friend reminded us, if the Bill could usefully be called the Thurrock Bill, the clause could usefully be called the Suffolk, Coastal clause, because late in the day on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rose to his feet and made a blistering speech pointing out that it was hard to see how some of the bodies grouped together—for example, in subsection 3—could be considered democratic bodies.

I take the Minister’s point about primary care trusts, but I find it hard to understand how a strategic health authority can remotely be considered democratic. I do not know what it is like down in the south-west, but most of us in the south-east have no idea where our strategic health authority is or what it does. I cannot remember when we last met with it, although the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North Cornwall might be more fortunate. Those bodies are so remote from local people as to prompt the question what on earth they are doing in the clause.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I bumped into the chief executive of our strategic health authority on the way up to Westminster this week, but most of our constituents would not have the opportunity for that sort of chance meeting. They would not recognise him if they saw him, and would have no idea what influence he has over future health  spending. The Appointments Commission is advertising for a new chair for that authority, and I wonder how many of my constituents know what role that important position will have in their lives.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

I agree. There is a certain amount of muttering on the Labour Benches. If one went right through those Benches, I wonder how many Labour Members one would find who have had a meeting in the past six months with their strategic health authority. I wonder how many of them, if one stopped them in the corridor for a vox pop—assuming they did not think that it was about other topical themes of the moment—would be able to name the people who lead it.

That is just one example of the bodies listed in the clause, and there are some curious omissions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, why not the Learning and Skills Council? Again, one could argue that it operates somewhere in the world between bureaucratic appointment and democratic action. Why is it not on the list? It is significant that although local authorities will have a duty under the clause to promote the understanding of an authority that includes the Secretary of State, they will not have a duty to promote understanding of national Government. Again, one might ask why not. There are serious questions to be asked about why these authorities exist, what the rationale is for them, and what the rationale is for the possible exclusion of other bodies on the basis of their inclusion.

Towards the end of the clause, subsection (6) states:

“The appropriate national authority may by order amend this section so as to—

add any person who has functions of a public nature to the authorities”.

In other words, if anyone in Government has forgotten to put something in his clauses and has forgotten to add any amendment—in addition to the 170 amendments already tabled—he can come along by order and bung them in under the clause, correcting his own mistakes without any democratic consideration in a Committee like this.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

My hon. Friend refers to the bizarre omissions from the clause. He should also, perhaps, consider the bizarre inclusions. The nemesis of the nanny state is that this primary legislation seeks to tell us about the democratic arrangements of a parish meeting—that seems to be reaching into the nooks and crannies of life—and also the democratic arrangements of a chief police officer. That is bizarre in the extreme given that it has been a convention not to interfere in the operational matters of the police. Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that it is also bizarre that, as we include a national park authority, we do not include an area of outstanding national beauty in the Bill?

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s justification for the omissions and inclusions. I must confess that on the Conservative side of the Committee—and probably on the Labour side, although they are too tactful and loyal to say so—there will be complete confusion about the basis for including such things. It is  hard to see how a chief officer of police can have the democratic label attached to him in the same way as a police authority can.

Of course it is a good thing for local authorities to promote understanding in that way, but to put it in statute with a performance indicator attached, which local authorities will not have to sign up to in any case, can only mean that Downing street has gone around the Departments and said, “You must put up your quota of Bills for this year.” The Government could not, then, think of anything better than this Bill and this wretched clause.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

The name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is being invoked fairly frequently and we are only debating clause 2. Although some of the language he used on Second Reading was unparliamentary, perhaps it is best described as “a load of Thurrocks.”

The clause is bizarre because the basic assumption behind it is that there is no problem with the structures that are in place for all the quangos and democratically accountable bodies listed in the subsections. It presumes that all those structures are fine, and that the problem is that people do not understand how they work. That is the fundamental point that the Government have got wrong. Do people not understand what the Homes and Communities Agency does because the local council has not been telling them, or is it because it is opaque and difficult to define? I sat at a meeting where the Homes and Communities Agency and the regional development agency had a debate about who was responsible for place shaping in the south-west. It is likely that their roles and accountability structures are not clearly defined—not that people are so stupid that they cannot understand them.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

If the hon. Lady thinks that is difficult, wait until we get the new super planning quango in operation and see how that is going to relate to local people.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we want a genuine debate about engaging people, I do not see how that can be done purely by saying that the problem is a lack of information and the way it has been spread around. Surely there must be a much more fundamental look at how the information is provided and the underlying structures. That is the fundamental problem that the Bill, particularly this clause, fails to address.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

Is the hon. Lady as puzzled as I am that the Government seem to use turnout as a measurement of disengagement from local government, yet in our modern age we are deluged with information, particularly from Government Departments and organisations, on websites, in the local library and so on? In fact, the turnout is no worse now than it was in the early 1970s, when much of that information was distributed to local people.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Turnout should not be the only measurement we use to decide whether information is effectively available or whether people are engaged, not  least because so many of the organisations have no direct democratic mandate. An issue that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall raised in oral questions earlier was the fact that there is not direct democratic accountability for a national park, for example.

The Government have not gone back to the first-level question: do people not want to participate? If that is the case, is it because they do not understand, which is what the assumption seems to be, or is it because they feel that their participation will make no impact on the outcome? No amount of information will persuade people to take part if they can say, “I have found lots of ways to make my complaint to the strategic health authority, but it still told me to get lost and that it was going to give out resources in the way in which it had already said. What is the point?” It is that whole issue that the Government seem not to get. It is the elephant in the room, and it is not addressed in any part of the Bill.

Like the hon. Member for Wycombe, I am puzzled as to why only the local authority has responsibility for promoting understanding of the functions and democratic arrangements of authorities, and how members of the public can take part. Actually, I would like the Homes and Communities Agency to stand up and explain how it is accountable. I would like the strategic health authority to make itself more publicly visible and accountable, and to explain how its complaints process and decision-making structure work. Are local authorities to produce written information even on that? They will have to produce hefty tomes to explain exactly how all the different authorities work and what the accountability structure is.

An organisation that is not on the list of authorities but absolutely should be is the regional development agency. Why are RDAs not included on the list? The explanatory notes state that connected authorities are

“public bodies or persons that have a strong local presence, making decisions that are directly relevant to local people in the principal local authority’s area”.

I cannot think of any organisation that has as great a role. In the south-west, in Cornwall in particular, the RDA has a massive influence at local level. Not only does it control economic regeneration budgets; it also runs the convergence programme, which involves European funding and has the potential to have a massive impact on Cornwall’s economy.

Just yesterday, the RDA announced that it would withdraw funding for a key project that would deliver huge amounts of employment in a part of my constituency. It made that announcement without consulting any elected representative, as far as I am aware. Cornwall MPs have been seeking a meeting with the RDA for more than a month to raise concerns about pressures on budgets, but it refused to meet us. It said that it was in purdah, but the day after it came out of purdah, it announced that it was making massive cuts.

I, for one, would be keen to have the RDA stand up and explain to local people how its accountability process works, because it is not clear to me. I cannot see why RDAs are not included on the list.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

The hon. Lady touches on an important point about RDAs. She might also wish to consider Government offices for the regions, and in particular their giving a green light or otherwise to residential  developments. They usually give a green light to large-scale residential developments on, for instance, allotment land. Such permission given by a Government office completely undermines and circumscribes the planning decisions taken by the local authority. Does she think that needs an element of local input in a democracy?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Absolutely, and that leads me to a further question. The Minister may be aware that when I was first elected, I invested a huge amount of time in promoting the Sustainable Communities Bill, which was a private Member’s Bill and was enacted a year or two ago. A key proviso of that Act was a requirement for local spending reports to be produced detailing the extent of all public spending on a principal authority basis. If the Government believe that the functions of authorities connected to the principal local authority, the democratic arrangements and how members of the public may take part in those democratic arrangements are important for local people and will encourage engagement, surely local spending reports are also important. People will then understand not only what decisions are made, but their impact on resources. I am disappointed that the Government are trying to kick the matter into the long grass, and are providing only limited information, which is already in the public domain, when lower spending by, for example, RDAs will not be provided. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response on why that was not included, because if providing details of public spending at principal authority level and understanding at local level are important, surely information must also be provided about public spending.

The Minister clearly wants people to understand how all the agencies interrelate and what the accountability and democratic arrangements are. Will she provide a brief, plain English summary of that in relation to the authorities? It will create a massive amount of work for councils to do that, and we will probably end up with a document that is incomprehensible because there is no clarity or consistency in the democratic structures. People will not understand because the matter is so complicated and confusing, and that fundamental problem is not being addressed.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

I am a simple-minded soul, and when I look at a Bill, I try to see how it will affect my constituents. The problems that they most frequently bring to me, when there is evidence of lack of understanding of who is responsible for what and what democratic accountability is, concern housing. I do not know about other Members, but for me the biggest range of issues by far concerns housing, so I looked to see whether there is any responsibility for promoting understanding and where democratic responsibility lies for housing providers. I cannot find that.

Will North Hertfordshire district council have a duty to promote understanding of democratic accountability and means of participating, and influencing North Hertfordshire Homes, which is an independent provider of what were formerly council homes? That is a relevant matter, which the Minister has clearly not thought about. It shows how little thought has gone into the Bill when the biggest single issue—[Interruption.]Sorry; I do not blame the Minister, who has had almost as little time to think about the matter as I have. It was the first thing to occur to me, but she cannot be blamed for the Bill.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman has had rather more time to understand the structures of local authorities and their housing responsibilities. The day-to-day running of housing in his part of Hertfordshire might have been passed to the arm’s length management organisation or housing association to which he refers, but the local authority remains a housing authority, so it is democratically responsible. In the course of explaining the duties in clause 1, which we have just approved, the authority will clearly explain its role and the relationship to it of the various providers of housing in the area. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman accused the Opposition of complacency. Now he is assuming that the electorate understand the fine points of constitutional practice relating to housing boards that he understands and believes that I understand, but some of my constituents were not aware of the points that he made, and might have thought that a duty would be placed on local authorities. If they are to explain the workings of the Broads Authority, the primary care trust or the strategic health authority, the issue that concerns them most, which they most frequently bring to my surgeries, would be featured in the Bill. I can neither see nor find it, and I require an explanation as to why it is not there.

The second most frequent issue that comes up in my surgery is planning matters. There is concern among constituents about the democratic accountability of planning inspectors. Again, I cannot find reference in the Bill to that issue. We have the extraordinary situation whereby, although the Bill intends to lay on local authorities a duty to promote understanding and clarify misunderstandings, the two most important issues—the two that arise most frequently in my constituency of Hitchin and Harpenden—are not mentioned in the Bill. I suspect that that is the case in most constituencies, unless mine is extraordinarily different from the rest of the country. Will the Minister explain why that is so? Is there some intricate clause that I have not yet located and understood, which reveals the answer?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a lack of understanding of how the planning process works that drives so many constituents to his surgery, or is it frustration at how the current planning system works—for example, the fact that there is no third-party right of appeal? Is the problem with the way the decisions are made, rather than a lack of understanding of how they are made?

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is always frustration that brings people to my surgery. They do not come for abstract seminars on where power lies. [Interruption.] Apparently, they do in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends. When something has gone wrong, when they have met a brick wall, or when they think that something is unfair or does not seem right, they come to me. Sometimes, that reveals that they do not understand where the responsibilities lie, particularly in planning matters.

To return to my constant theme, which will be repeated on a number of occasions, my constituents come to me when they are told that Luton council is planning to  build houses in north Hertfordshire. “How can that be right?”, they say. “How can that be possible? We vote for North Hertfordshire district council and for Hertfordshire county council. We know that they have housing targets that they have to meet in their areas, yet Luton seems to be able to meet its target by building in our area.” Is there any duty on the local authority to explain how that is so, how it can be possible and under what law it arises? That is the biggest single issue in my constituency and it does not seem to be covered by the Bill, yet it seems that it ought to cover it.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Has anyone come to my right hon. Friend in one of his surgeries in Hitchin and Harpenden and said, “Can you direct us to a community meeting that is an authority?” If he replied, “Please do not talk nonsense”, did they respond with, “Well, Member of Parliament, if you look at subsections (4) and (5)(b) of clause 2, you will find that a community meeting is an authority in Wales, but apparently not in England or anywhere else”?

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

Although the range of issues raised at my surgeries is breathtakingly wide, so far it has not included the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I have never held a surgery that did not raise a new issue that I had not previously discovered in 25 years. So, in a future surgery, that issue will quite possibly come up, and I will be better equipped to respond to it as a result of having served on this Committee.

I ask the Minister three concrete questions. Why are responsibilities in relation to housing providers not covered by the Bill? Why are responsibilities on planning issues, particularly planning inspectors, not covered? Why do local authorities not have to explain why one council can build in another council’s area?

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Once again, this has been a lively debate. I shall cover as many of the issues that were raised as I can.

Local authorities’ role as strategic landlords is covered in clause 1. Planning is the responsibility of local authorities and is therefore covered by clause 1. The Homes and Communities Agency is referred to in clause 2(2)(b).

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative)

Clause 1 will impose a duty only on the principal local authority to explain its responsibilities. It will not, say in the case of North Hertfordshire district council, impose a duty to explain how Luton’s responsibilities affect my constituents.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

As I have said, where the local authority is a strategic landlord, it will be covered by clause 1.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about regional development agencies, as she will know, the House has agreed to set up Select Committees to examine regional matters, which would clearly be covered by regional development agencies. I should be happy to give way to her to enable her to say whether she intends to raise, through the auspices of the Regional Select Committees, the issue of regional development agencies and whether they have been meeting her and others; or is her party not participating in those Committees?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

My understanding is that regional development agencies are delivering services in the community and should be accountable to the people they affect. Yet we see the creation, unfortunately, of yet another indirectly accountable organisation. Does the Minister not support the idea that such organisations should be directly accountable to the people they serve, rather than indirectly accountable to an even more remote and unaccountable organisation via Parliament?

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Personally, I was a supporter of regional government. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Elected.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Yes, I was a supporter of elected regional Government, and I am sorry that it could not go forward. [Interruption.] No; the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne will also know that clauses 67 to 69 set out how the leaders’ boards will operate. The leaders themselves are clearly directly elected. I would have liked elected regional government, but that was not to be. I am sure—and I hope—that she was very supportive of that. She will see that those clauses deal with the responsible regional authorities setting out how they intend to involve local people in consultation. Leaders’ boards, through sub-national reviews, draw up integrated strategies with the regional development agencies.

I ask the hon. Lady again whether she intends to participate in the Regional Select Committees, which exist to ensure that she, as an elected representative, can hold the regional development agencies to account, in addition to the other ways in which they are held to account locally. Will she be participating?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that Cornwall would love a representative on the Regional Select Committee. Unfortunately, despite the fact that Labour has no Members of the European Parliament for the south-west region and is not the largest party, it will have a majority—

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I think that it is sixth in Cornwall.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Yes, in the latest election, it came sixth, behind the Cornish nationalists. [Interruption.] The Minister is speaking from a sedentary position, but perhaps she will listen. I know that she is new to the post and may not understand how it works, but Regional Select Committees will have a Government majority. The Liberal Democrats would have only one Member who could sit on the Committee. Therefore, either Cornwall or Somerset would be entirely unrepresented if the Liberal Democrats took part. It would be very difficult for Cornwall to be represented at all, even if the Liberal Democrats participated.

I hope that the Minister can answer a further question. We are talking about how local people understand how the authorities work and affect their area. Will the Regional Select Committees undertake an exercise to help constituents across the regions understand the decisions that the RDAs have made and how they will be accountable? That is not set out in the Bill, which gives responsibilities to local authorities only.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The hon. Lady will know that Regional Select Committees were set up under House rules. By that logic, she would not want to participate in any Select Committee. Frankly, if she wished to attend the Select Committee, she would presumably have the nous to ask a question and to make suggestions about how it would operate. I am at a loss to know why she does not want to take the opportunity to represent people in her area on an important Committee, which could ask RDAs to come to the House to answer questions. She is obviously not interested in pursuing that route but prefers to stand on the sidelines quibbling about whether they have had meetings.

Several Opposition Members asked about how the different strategic health authorities are selected and the criteria for inclusion in the list. First, anybody with a strong local presence in the area has democratic arrangements as per the definition in the Bill. There are opportunities for the public to influence or take part in the making of decisions. That includes attending public meetings, contributing to consultation forums, making representations to elected representatives on the body, or standing for a role themselves.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which includes a strengthened NHS duty to involve users in decisions about service planning and development. Secondly, there is a duty on PCTs and SHAs that commission health services to report back to communities about the action that they are taking in response to public feedback to consultation.

There are also local involvement networks. A woman came to my surgery on Friday from the local Alzheimer’s society asking how she could get involved in influencing decision making about services in the local area for people with Alzheimer’s. I told her that it would be a good idea to get involved with the LINk. She replied that she did not know about it and would be interested in joining. We have to grasp some of the principles here, because people can feel that they have no influence over some of these organisations. We in Parliament have set out ways for people to be involved, whether in shaping decisions about health care, social services, the police or other organisations. Some of the proposals have been made in response to Liberal Democrat amendments tabled in the Lords, particularly in relation to parish councils. If through legislation in this House we have given people the opportunity to participate in that decision-making process or to be consulted on the delivery of vital services, we should do what we can to encourage a wider understanding about how that operates. That is not something that we should resile from.

The hon. Member for Wycombe made the point about being able to add other agencies at a later date. I am sure that he understands that it would be foolish to not allow for other organisations to be added at a later date if it was felt appropriate. We would not want to have to come back to primary legislation to do that; we would want to do it by secondary legislation.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

The Minister cannot blame us for asking on what basis these organisations are listed and whether the Government have simply thought through their list. I illustrate that point with a simple question, which I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden: how on earth can it be that a  community meeting in Wales—subsection (5)(b)—is an authority that is connected with a local authority in Wales? How, by the same logic, can it not be that a community meeting in England is not a similar authority? If the Minister does not have the answer in front of her, perhaps she can wait for the inspiration that traditionally arrives in Committee to answer a question. It is perfectly reasonable for Opposition Members to ask such questions about the detail of this sort of legislation.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The community meeting that the hon. Gentleman refers to is the Welsh equivalent of a parish meeting. As I said earlier, the parish meeting was added as a result of a Liberal Democrat amendment in the House of Lords that the Government accepted following debate and discussion.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that the terminology for English Members might be slightly different. However, I represent a constituency with 70 parishes. Where the electorate is small, a parish council is not formed to represent the people of that parish, and a parish meeting is therefore held twice a year to discuss issues and set a precept. That is the model of a community meeting where a community council is sometimes equivalent to a parish council.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

As I said, we accepted the Liberal Democrat amendment. We brought forward a Government amendment in response to the obviously well-thought-out point that, if we did not include such a provision, we would be missing an important section of people. However, it relates to parish meetings in England and what are known as community meetings in Wales.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s willingness to take on board other agencies and to consider them. An example of that might be the Child Support Agency, which might be a glaring example, but it is a clear case of where Government agencies impact on individuals and where a clearer understanding of how the processes work is needed.

However, I still do not understand why the Minister seems to rule regional development agencies out of hand. Surely, if an individual comes forward to the local council and says, “I don’t understand how the regional development agency works. Could you please help me understand how its accountability process works and how I might participate?” is the Minister honestly saying that it would say, “We have no responsibility to tell you about that, so I’m afraid that I am not going to say.” Will it then be left to them to understand that the agency will go through this arcane route of being accountable through some kind of Regional Minister and Government majority-led Regional Select Committee? It seems to make no sense that councils have a duty to promote the understanding of public bodies that impact locally, yet the Minister is implying that they would refuse to do so in this area.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

There are two points here. The hon. Lady might like to look at part 5, which talks about how there should be community involvement in decisions  that are taken at regional level. Through the leaders’ boards that will be established following the sub-national review, the regional strategic plan will be drawn up. Within that, local authorities will be keen to say why they have supported different parts of that plan, which include planning, transport and which look at economic delivery. There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent local authorities from providing further information about regional development agencies, and nothing to prevent them from talking about the decisions made by the scrutiny bodies. All the regional development plans are covered by scrutiny boards—an extremely important part of how the RDAs operate.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned the CSA. We have tried to encapsulate in the bodies listed here ones that have a participatory forum for local people, as do health and police authorities and many other organisations. It is true that the CSA has a powerful effect on local people’s lives. However, local people have consultation meetings and forums. There is a local presence whereby people go along and inform the policy. The policy for organisations such as the CSA is formulated in the House and is the responsibility of Government Departments. There is a key distinction between how the two operate. I am sure that if the hon. Lady ponders that, she will see the distinction between them. It is about, as my constituents would say, the responsibility for neighbourhood policing—the policing pledge.

Some Opposition Members have talked about the issue of the chief police officer. There is a very direct correlation between what people feel is happening on the streets in their neighbourhoods, what impacts on their families, and how the policies are put together to reflect those local circumstances. That is where I feel people make that connection, and where we are trying, through the list that has been drawn up, to say, “This is where people need to understand how some of the decisions are made and how to have an input into that.”

There are totally different structures for the CSA. It is about the assessment that an individual may receive from the CSA. Constituents whom we support may be going to the CSA to get help in supporting their families, but it is not about shaping how the CSA might operate differently in their local area, as opposed to the national criteria that we in the House have set down.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I can understand the distinction that the Minister makes between the CSA and, for example, the strategic health authority. But if the health authority is a body delivering Government policy in the regions, I fail to see how that can be distinguished from the regional development agencies, which are also delivering Government policy in the regions. I do not understand how she is able to make a distinction between those two regional organisations.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

First, nothing prevents local authorities from including information about regional development agencies. As part of their duties in respect of scrutiny at regional level—through the use of leaders’ boards, for example—they will be accountable to their electorate for the policies they are advancing. So there is the ability to give further information about regional  development agencies, but it is also important in respect of the Bill’s later clauses that the relevant regional authorities give information about how they are involving people when preparing their regional strategies, for example. Again, that is an important way to ensure accountability.

I have confessed that I would like to have seen elected regional government, which would have been the ideal way of ensuring complete regional accountability. That is not to be, but there we are.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

I understand the distinction that the Minister is drawing between bodies such as the CSA and regional development agencies. However, it is hard to see, on the basis of the argument that she is making, why Departments, Secretaries of State and some of the machinery of national Government are not covered by the clause if the Government want to go in that direction—unwisely, but there it is. There is a limited reference to the Secretary of State in subsection 2(c) in relation to the Offender Management Act 2007, but I cannot see in the clause a reference to Secretaries of State more broadly or to Departments. On the basis of the Minister’s logic, I am curious to know why that is so. Perhaps I am missing something.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The Bill clearly applies to the delivery of local services. As the national Government, we want to be able to ensure that people understand how national Government works. There tends to be greater confusion about where local responsibility lies than in respect of where national Government have responsibility. That is important, because as we were discussing earlier many people come to our surgeries and think that we are delivering local housing and social services. We are trying to get at how local authorities—the Bill is about the delivery of local services—can promote a better understanding of how those services are delivered. It is important that we make it clear how people can get involved in some of the decision-making and policy-shaping services themselves.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I cannot quite follow the logic of the Minister’s argument. She seems to be saying that there is a strict distinction between the discursive bodies mentioned in the Bill, which are effectively agencies of central Government, and “more important” decision-taking and policy-making bodies such as the strategic health authorities, which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned. The SHAs are important in delivering crucial policies, such as clinical guidelines, throughout their area, as the Minister knows. If the Government are keen on holding to account those decision-taking and policy-making bodies, why in subsection (2)(e) has she included further education institutions, which are not really policy-making bodies, and not the Learning and Skills Council branches, which, as we  have seen from the debacle over capital funding in FE, are the policy-making bodies? Why is that distinction made?

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Because local people are involved on the governing bodies of further education colleges. My local FE college, for example, is part of the community. It delivers training in particular and works with local businesses, drawing up courses that will reflect local needs and being part of that discussion. In my area, there is heavy representation from further education colleges on the local skills board and the local authority. The skills board working in Barnsley is brilliant, Mr. Illsley. A key point that has emerged is the inclusion of further education representatives on the skills board, for example, because of the importance of the link with local businesses. The further education colleges have certainly welcomed their involvement in the process. I hope that I have helped clarify a number of the issues raised by Opposition Members.

Because of the structural changes made through the Further Education and Training Act 2007, the LSC no longer has a local non-executive council structure in place to which local people could be appointed. It would not seem appropriate to list the LSC for the purposes of the clause.

I hope that, having heard my explanations, Committee members will give unanimous support for the clause, given that it is obviously a crucial mechanism for delivering local understanding of and involvement in public and other services. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.