Part 2A - Decisions relating to holding of events

Part of Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:30 am on 11 January 2012.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Bob Neill Bob Neill The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 9:30, 11 January 2012

It is a delight to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his work on the Bill and, if I may say so, for the constructive way he has engaged with the Government and officials in my Department, for which I am personally grateful. The amendments that he has tabled are sensible, and the Government welcome and endorse them. In our judgment, if the Committee is minded to accept them, they will enable the Government to support the Bill.

In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Warrington North, I beg to differ. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is right to point out that the ombudsman’s role as a means of redress for the citizen is important and should not be understated.

The amendments would bring the Bill into line with the recommendations in the report by Lord Young of Graffham, “Common Sense, Common Safety”. That sensible and constructive report made three important recommendations. The first recommended:

“Officials who ban events on health and safety grounds should put their reasons in writing”.

That seems sensible and fair. The second recommended that citizens have

“a route for redress where they want to challenge local officials’ decisions”—

I cannot believe that any Member of the House would object to that. Finally, it suggested that

“Citizens should be able to refer unfair decisions to the Ombudsman” and that there be a fast-track process, which again seems sensible and proportionate.

Although I accept that in the majority of cases local authorities and their officials act sensibly and proportionately and I recognise that there is a national policy need for sensible health and safety regulation, proportionate risk management is the key factor. Unfortunately, instances have come to light in which the proportionality was questionable, and it is right and proper that, in those circumstances, the citizen should have a means of redress. The Bill, if the amendments are accepted, will fulfil a useful function in achieving that.