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

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 (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.