Clause 3

Part of Sustainable Communities Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:45 pm on 9 May 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Nick Hurd Nick Hurd Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood 2:45, 9 May 2007

We have had an excellent trot around the track of clause 3. I hope that the Minister has got the message from the debate about how important the clause is. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne put it very well when she said that the Bill is trying to give local communities a genuine sense of empowerment. To break through the inertia that we know is out there—it was very well described by the hon. Member for Eltham—we must send a strong signal through the Bill that something is going to change. In that context, as we discussed during our debate on clause 2, simply sending out a signal that there is a duty to consult just will not do.

We see the clause as the final piece in the chain of duty of co-operation that cascades down from the Secretary of State. Without it, I do not think that our constituents, who we want to feel have a genuine opportunity to influence decisions about their community, will believe that anything has really changed. The clause cannot just be about establishing a duty to consult. I know that we all have experience from our own constituencies, but in my experience the terms “public consultation” and “sham” have become absolutely interwoven; there is simply no credibility or faith in the process of public consultation. We have to do something different, and we have to signal that we are doing something different in the Bill.

The amendments, to which the hon. Member for Stroud spoke, go further than the original clause in being specific about the kinds of groups that need to be involved in this new concept of citizens panels, with which local authorities should have a duty to co-operate.

The point that the hon. Gentleman made forcefully, which was reflected in the debate on the Floor of the House principally in the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, is that we intend to unleash a new process of popular democracy, in which the view that local people know best holds sway and people feel that they have a genuine opportunity to influence both how money is spent in their area and the national action plan for sustainable communities.

That is some order, given the inertia that is out there. However, it is a process that, if successful, will create plenty of noise. It will create vigorous local debate—it will be democracy with sharp elbows. As the hon. Member for Eltham said, it will be an opportunity for the politically articulate, so we have to ensure that  those with a quieter voice are heard. That is the simple explanation for the extended list that we propose to include in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering made an extremely valid case, and I very much respect his points and the way in which he made them, because he showed that he was sensitive to what those who tabled the amendment are trying to achieve. However, he also made the valid point that there is a risk of going too far down the route of political correctness, and simply segmenting our constituencies and communities into groups of vested interests and lobbies. That is not our intention; that is not the world that we want to live in. Nevertheless, I think that he understood—and he articulated that he understood—the point of the amendment, which is to signal that, in the midst of this noisy and vigorous democracy, we must ensure that, during the process of consultation, the quiet minority voice that might otherwise get drowned out is heard.

There is significant support for that view. If the Minister is short of a poster or two to cover some wall space in his office or at home, I can offer him plenty of material. I am looking at a large poster full of endorsements for our approach from various organisations: the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Chinese in Britain Forum and the UK Coalition Against Poverty. I could go on. There is a list of about 20 or 25 organisations that recognise that point and fully support the principles of the Bill. In the process of noisy and vigorous debate, which we should welcome, we need to protect the minority voice. I hope that my hon. Friend the. Member for Kettering has absorbed that point.

As for the Government’s position, we will be all ears when the Minister responds to the debate. I mentioned that, in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Chorley likened him to a slippery bar of soap, which was unfair, as he has proved since then to be sponge-like in his qualities. I hope that he proves that again this afternoon.

The Government’s position as I understand it is, “We don’t need this clause, because we’re covering it under clause 108 of the local government Bill.” That argument is difficult to sustain. That is not to criticise clause 108, which serves its purpose in the context in which it was written. It is a minimum, across-the-board requirement to involve communities, but it is discretionary, and it is quite right that it should be, because it is clearly not appropriate for local councils to consult on everything.